Xxxxx vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

This case involves a criminal petition filed by Fareeda Khanum, a Superintendent of Central GST, seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Mr. Shashibushana K (Respondent No. 2), also a Central GST officer. The original complaint, filed on April 17, 2021, alleged offences including sexual assault, cheating, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 promised to marry her while he was already married, and subsequently sexually assaulted her after intoxicating her. Respondent No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on June 16, 2021, with specific conditions. The petitioner's subsequent Special Leave Petition challenging this bail order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Held

The Court held that the petition for cancellation of bail is dismissed. Regarding the alleged violation of bail conditions, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the bail order. The State's counsel, on instructions, submitted that Respondent No. 2 had not violated any bail conditions, had executed the bond, cooperated with the investigation, and that recovery had been made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court found the petitioner's claim of witness tampering and threats to be unsubstantiated. The FIR registered on February 10, 2022, based on a private complaint filed by the petitioner, was considered an afterthought, filed nearly seven months after the present bail cancellation petition and after the Court had questioned the petitioner about the material for cancellation. The Court found no evidence of obscene photographs or videos being created or shared by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, no grounds were made out for cancelling the bail granted on June 16, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to Respondent No. 2 should be cancelled due to alleged violation of bail conditions, specifically concerning tampering with witnesses and threatening the complainant, as per Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner's Arguments: - Respondent No. 2 has violated the conditions of bail by threatening witnesses and the complainant to withdraw the complaint. - The FSL authorities could not retrieve messages from Respondent No. 2's mobile phone, indicating non-cooperation. - Reliance on Supreme Court pronouncements regarding bail cancellation. Respondent No. 2's Arguments: - The petition is not maintainable as the Supreme Court has already confirmed the bail order. - No documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegations of witness tampering or threats. - A subsequent private complaint filed by the petitioner, leading to a new FIR, was filed after the present petition was questioned by the Court, suggesting it is an afterthought. - Respondent No. 2 has not uploaded any obscene photographs/videographs. State's Arguments: - Respondent No. 2 has complied with all bail conditions, including executing the bond and cooperating with the investigation. - The mobile phone of Respondent No. 2 has been recovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. - No conditions have been violated warranting bail cancellation.