Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Olympic Medalist

The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to hockey player in a rape case. The petitioner is the sole accused in a FIR registered under Section 420/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(2), 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”).

The complaint and FIR allege that the Petitioner Varun Kumar established sexual relations with the Complainant on the false pretext of marriage when she was a minor and that such relations continued till after the Complainant attained majority. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner had threatened to upload intimate pictures of the Complainant on social media and raped her on the basis of the same.

Upon learning of the registration of the FIR through social media, the Petitioner approached the Trial Court at Bengaluru seeking anticipatory however, the same was rejected. The Petitioner then approached the High Court of Karnataka by way of CR. P. No. 2020/2024 and sought anticipatory bail.

The arguments advanced before the High Court were:

• The Petitioner and the Complainant were in a consensual relationship from 2021 to 2023 and at the time both of them were adults. The Complainant and the Petitioner had even met each other’s families but on account of certain differences arising between the two on account of family backgrounds, the relationship could not culminate in marriage.

• there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the Complainant has concealed filing of earlier complaint.

• allegations of trap, false promise, extortion do not have any relevance since the family members of the Complainant are/ were police officers, government servants and members of a political party.  Per contra, the Petitioner hails from a poor farmer’s family and with his own capacity he has achieved his professional success. The Complainant is in a dominant position as compared to the Petitioner and the question of threatening or influencing her does not arise.

• The Petitioner is neither residing in Bengaluru (where the FIR is registered) or in Hyderabad (where the Complainant resides) and the dispute started only when the secured the appointment letter from the Government of Punjab for the post of DSP. The complainant and FIR are a product of vendetta.

• Lastly, there is no need to collect any forensic material in view of the admitted relationship and the Petitioner is willing to abide with any conditions imposed by the Court.

The High Court observed that the at the time of the first allegation of rape, the Complainant was admittedly 17 ½ years old and capable of understanding things. Apart from that, subsequently the parties maintained the relationship even after the victim attaining the age of majority till 14.05.2023 i.e till 4 years after the Complainant attained majority But, during this period the victim nowhere complained regarding she being enticed or exploited by the Petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the allegation that relations were established in different locations discloses that both the parties were having a love affair and both of them were sports persons and they developed relationship and that levelling of allegations under POCSO after 4 years is very strange.

The High Court further observed that family of the victim is a highly reputed as well as highly influential family and that under such circumstances, question of Petitioner blackmailing the Complainant under the guise of certain photographs etc., holds no water.

It was also appreciated by the Hon’ble High Court that despite there being allegations of abscondence of the Petitioner, no evidence is placed by the Investigating Agency to show that any attempt has been made to serve notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., to the Petitioner. Further, there is no medical examination required as the Petitioner has nowhere disputed his potentiality and as regards recovery of mobile phone, the Petitioner can be directed to deposit the same.

In the opinion of the High Court the complaint is delayed y 4-5 years and the reason for the same is a sarcastic one. Additionally, the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO can only be invoked at the stage of trial.

While granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, the High Court held that: “Merely because he is a National Hockey Player or he is about to get a job or he was awarded with the President Medal, cannot be termed as a influential person, but whatever the achievement made by him is because of his hard work and that cannot be termed as an influence. On the contrary the records disclose that the family of the victim itself is a highly influential family. Further, 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.”

The Petitioner is a national level hockey player. He is an Olympic medalist and an Arjuna Awardee. Due to registration of the FIR and ongoing investigation, he had written to Hockey India on 07.02.2024 seeking urgent leave to seek his legal remedies and had to even drop out of the Pro League.

The Petitioner was represented by Mr. Arjun Syal and Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, Advocates assisted by Vaibhav Luthra, advocate. Mr. Sivarama Krishnan and Ms. Sindhu V. were the advocates on record.

Mr. Arjun Syal and Ms. Mehaak Jaggi alongwith the team from Syal & Co. have been advising the Petitioner from the time he became aware of the registration of the FIR and representing him in his legal battle.