Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition filed by noted Hockey player, Varun Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in case registered against him under Sections and of (IPC) as well as under Sections , and of the (POCSO Act), the Bench of Rajendra Badamikar, J.*, granted conditional anticipatory bail to the hockey player. The Court opined that the petitioner cannot be termed as an influential person merely because he is an award-winning National Hockey Player. The Court noted that the petitioner’s achievements which were earned because of his hard work, cannot be termed as an influence. However, the Court also pointed out that the records disclose that the family of the victim itself is a highly influential family, with her father being a Senior Police Officer.
Background: The victim had been practicing volleyball since 2016. The victim alleged that in 2018, when she was 16 years old, the petitioner approached her via Instagram, pleading her to meet and talk to him by ‘shedding crocodile tears under the guide of sincere love’. It was alleged that in 2019, when the victim was 17 years old, the petitioner took her to a hotel for dinner in a room and tried to touch her. It was alleged that later the petitioner repeatedly committed rape on her for years at different locations in Bhuvaneshwar, Delhi and Jalandhar and threatened to upload the intimate pictures taken by him in the social media.
It was further alleged that in May 2023, the petitioner committed rape on the victim again and rejected her and abused her instead of fulfilling the promise of marriage.
The victim contended that due to her innocence, she had no knowledge of being trapped by the petitioner with an evil intent and malicious propaganda to satisfy his lust under the pretext of marriage.
The victim filed a complaint, and an FIR was thus registered. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. However, his bail petition came to be rejected and hence, he filed the instant petition.
Contentions: The petitioner contended that as per records, the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was a consensual relationship from 2021 to 2023 and the victim was a major then. It is also alleged that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
The petitioner further contended that the victim hails from a highly reputed as well as influential family, as her father was a Senior Police Officer in the State of Telangana, her sisters being Police Officer and Railway Employee and her mother being the Member of a political party. It was argued that the allegations of trap, false promise of marriage, extortion etc., do not have any relevance given the influence of the victim’s family, whereas the petitioner hails from a poor farmer’s family and made great strides in career with his own capability. Hence, the question of petitioner influencing or threatening would not arise, since the victim is in more dominating position being a daughter of a Senior Police Officer and being politically supported by her family members.
It is also submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was a pure love affair and families of both the parties had consented for their marriage. However, due to certain differences, the marriage could not be performed and now the petitioner is being victimized.
The petitioner further asserted that breach of promise to marry differs from false promise of marriage and there is no need to collect any forensic material in view of the admitted relationship.
Per contra, counsels for the State and victim contended that the first incident with the victim took place when she was minor. It was further submitted that victim lost her father recently and there is a high possibility that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
Court’s Assessment: Perusing the facts and contentions raised by the parties, the Court noted that when the first alleged incident took place in 2019, the victim was 17½ years old and at that time she was capable of understanding things. It was further pointed out that the parties maintained their relationship even after the victim attaining the age of majority. The Court also noted that after the victim’s father passed away, 14-05-2023 appeared to be their last day of meeting or physical relationship.
The Court pointed out that in the period of four years (2019-2023) during which the parties were in a relationship, the victim nowhere complained vis-à-vis being enticed or exploited by the petitioner.
The Court also took note of the admission that both victim and petitioner were residing in the same location i.e., at SAI (Sports Authority of India), Bengaluru and that the parties established physical relationship at different SAI locations as abovementioned. The Court pointed out that, both the parties were sports persons, and they developed a relationship with each other and now after four years, allegations regarding the offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act, appeared to be strange.
The Court also took note of the family of the victim is highly reputed as well as highly influential. Hence, it was pointed out that in such circumstances, the question of petitioner blackmailing the victim under the guise of certain photographs etc., did not seem convincing.
Taking note of the inordinate delay of 4-5 years to file the complaint and the prosecution’s attempt to invoke presumption under Section of , the Court pointed out that such presumption in favour of the prosecution cannot be applied at this juncture as the matter still at the stage of investigation. The Court stated that, “Further, when the parties continued their consensual physical relationship for a considerable long time, then the allegation of rape does not carry much importance. What is the real intention of the complainant-victim in prosecuting this matter is not at all forthcoming”.
Taking note of the cases relied on by the victim’s counsels, the Court pointed out that merely because the allegations have been made under provisions of POCSO Act or provisions under Section of , the same cannot be a ground for rejection of anticipatory bail.
It was further stated that the conduct of the victim in the instant case was also not above the suspicion given her family’s strong connection in the State machinery; therefore, it is difficult to accept the version of the prosecution that the victim was apprehending something or some fear from the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court stated that there is no necessity of the petitioner’s medical exam as he did not deny consensual relationship with the victim.
With the afore-stated assessment, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on conditions stated in the order and stated that, “Right of Freedom is a fundamental right and merely on the basis of allegations, the fundamental right cannot be curtailed and the matter requires a detailed trial and if the petitioner is found guilty during the course of the trial, then the law will take its own course. However, the pre-trial detention is unwarranted as it will be a serious stigma on the character of a person”.
[Varun Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Crl Petition No. 2020/2024, decided on 18-04-2024]
*Order by Justice Rajendra Badamikar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioner- Arun Sayal, Mehak Jaggi, Sivarama Krishnan MS and Sindhu V., Advocates
For respondents- K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .