Shri. Antony Raj vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioner were of a serious nature, including persistent unwanted phone calls, attempts to meet at various places and residences without reason, posing uncomfortable questions at the office, engaging in sexually explicit conversations, following the informant, and seeking sexual favours. The Court noted that the informant had filed a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) against the petitioner on 03.02.2021, which was still pending. The Court emphasized the purpose of the ICC as constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and observed that no action had been taken by the committee despite the complaint. The Court found that the informant approached the police due to the lack of resolution from the ICC. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, and the petitioner's position as a responsible officer in the Department of Customs, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail and a detailed investigation was necessary. The Court answered the sole issue in the negative.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Antony Raj, accused No. 2, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 32/2021 registered at Vidhana Soudha Police Station. The FIR was lodged by Fareeda Khanum for offences including Sections 354A, 354D, 376, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner, a Superintendent in the Department of Customs, argued he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that Accused No. 1, against whom more serious allegations were made, had already been granted bail. He also pointed out that the informant's initial complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was still pending. The State opposed the bail, highlighting serious allegations of harassment, intimidation, and sexually explicit conversations against the petitioner, who is a superior officer to the informant (a Superintendent of Central GST).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 32/2021? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and a law-abiding citizen. He is a responsible public servant with no criminal antecedents. He argued for parity with Accused No. 1, who was granted bail despite more serious allegations. He also highlighted that the informant's complaint to the ICC was pending, suggesting a lack of immediate action. He expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State argued that serious allegations of harassment, intimidation, and sexually explicit conversations were made against the petitioner, as detailed in paragraphs 11 to 23 of the complaint. They contended that the petitioner, a superior officer, was harassing the informant, a subordinate officer, and intimidating her to withdraw her complaint filed before the ICC. The State asserted that the petitioner's conduct showed disrespect towards women officers and was unbecoming of a government servant. They feared that if granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner might abscond, commit similar offences, or tamper with witnesses.