Swaroop Kumar R vs State Of Karnataka

C M Joshi, J

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

The petitioner has filed this petition for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr.No.393/2025 registered by Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 75, 79, 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The allegations that may be found in the said FIR are that the complainant was working as Guest Lecturer and accused Nos.1 to 5 were working in Rural Development Department of Bengaluru University. The complainant had alleged certain harassment by the accused, which was of sexual in nature and in that regard, the complainant had complained to various authorities. It was alleged that under political influence, the accused tried to dismiss the complainant from her guest lecturership in the University and none had assisted her. It was alleged that the petitioner herein (accused No.1) was recording a video of the complainant and the complainant had snatched the mobile phone and found that the accused was abusing the complainant in filthy and obscene words with threatening. It was contended in the complaint that if the complainant do not heed to their request, she would be removed from her job and that she should obey the say of the accused in giving him physical pleasure. The petitioner had allegedly stated that the complainant is at liberty to keep the mobile phone with her and the 'accused would see what the complainant would do'. The said complaint was registered by Jnanabharathi Police in the above crime number and the investigation was launched.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is in the habit of filing such complaints and on 10.10.2024, an earlier complaint was settled in the presence of Police of Ijoor Police Station, Ramanagar District. It is stated that the complainant is habitually filing complaints against the petitioner and others since they could not continue the complainant as guest lecturer. It is also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.Nos.7972/2025 and 8074/2025. Therefore, the Sessions Court should have granted the anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein also on the ground of parity. But however, it rejected the same without any reasons. He also contended that the wife of the petitioner is carrying by 08 months and his son is also suffering from ill-health and the documents produced along with the petition may be perused in this regard.

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State would contend that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and therefore, the Sessions Court was justified in denying anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is no sufficient reason to grant anticipatory bail, which has to be given in exceptional circumstances and the petitioner has not shown any such circumstances in the present case.

A perusal of the records would reveal that the complainant had snatched the mobile phone of the petitioner, while he was recording the conversation with the complainant. The complainant also alleges that the petitioner had stated that the complainant may keep the mobile phone with her and she is at liberty to do whatever she wants. Pertinently, the complainant do not mention anywhere that such mobile phone was handed over to the petitioner. The FIR also do not mention as to whether such mobile phone was produced before the SHO at the time of filing of the complaint. The complaint (FIR) is silent as to whether the complainant had returned the mobile phone to the petitioner herein.

The Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 who were also present at the time of the incident. The episode of snatching of mobile phone and the recording pertains to the accused No.1 alone but in all other aspects, the accused Nos.2 and 3 also stand in the same position as that of the petitioner. When these aspects are examined, it is evident that there was an earlier enmity and complaints which were filed by the complainant before the Police. The dispute between the parties was in respect of removing the complainant from guest lecturership in the University. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The allegations seem to be emanating from an earlier enmity and therefore, the offence of Section 75 of BNS appears to be remote.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is ground to believe that the FIR is an outcome an earlier enmity between the parties and as such, the contention of the petitioner cannot be discarded. Except the offence under Section 75 of BNS, other allegations are substantially bailable and the gravity do not show that there is need for custodial detention. Except the enmity that the petitioner and others were removing the complainant from service, no other kind of relationship emanates from the complaint. When the accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail, there is no reason for rejection of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is also entitled for the anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed with conditions. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Cr.No.393/2025 registered by Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 75, 79, 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from the date of this order and co-operate for investigation.

b) The petitioner shall not threaten the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

c) The petitioner shall communicate his contact details and residential address to the Investigating Officer.

d) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence during the pendency of the case.

e) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to move the trial Court if the presence of the petitioner for any enquiry is required.