Amit Kumar Banerjee vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that it was doubtful whether the victim was a consenting party or if the physical contact was against her will, thus questioning the applicability of Section 376 of the IPC. The Court noted that the complaint contained allegations of financial transactions and the creation of GST bills, suggesting that the matter might involve more than just physical contact and that these financial dealings could have motivated the complaint. Furthermore, the Court observed a significant delay in lodging the complaint (from 2008 to September 6, 2019) without a proper explanation, which was taken into consideration. Given these factors, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to surrendering before the Investigating Officer within ten days, executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, and adhering to other conditions like cooperating with the investigation, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Kumar Banerjee, is the sole accused in Cr.No.153/2019 registered at Beguru Police Station, Bangalore, for alleged offences under Sections 376, 313, and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim lady, aged about 30 years and a mother of two, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse against her will on multiple occasions, including during holidays in Goa. She also alleged that the petitioner assaulted her and forced her to undergo abortions more than twice. The complaint further stated that the petitioner used her documents for GST registration to create fake bills and took Rs. 2,60,000/- from her without repayment. The complaint was lodged on September 6, 2019, concerning incidents that allegedly occurred from 2008 onwards.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint, when taken at face value, attract the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, considering the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. if the offences are doubtful or a false case has been foisted? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the offences alleged are doubtful and a false case has been foisted against him. The court should tentatively look into the materials to assess this doubt. Revenue/State's contention: The State, represented by the Beguru Police Station, opposed the bail petition. The judgment does not explicitly record the State's specific arguments beyond opposing the bail, but it implies that the allegations in the complaint were considered sufficient to warrant investigation.