Karnataka High Court
Gokul Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2021
Author: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1058 OF 2021
BETWEEN
Gokul Kumar
S/o Selva Raj
Aged about 24 years,
Peddanapalya Village,
Hannur Taluk,
Chamaraja Nagara District-562130.
...Appellant
(By Sri Lethif B., Advocate)
AND
1. State of Karnataka,
By Ramapura Police Station,
Chamarajanagar District,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Madanayaka
S/o Bisalappa
Aged about 48 years,
Peddanapalya Village,
Hannur Taluk,
Chamaraja Nagara District-562130.
...Respondents
(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1;
R2 - Served)
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A) of
SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order dated
28.06.2021 in Spl.C.No.62/2021 on the file of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 114
read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 16 and 17 of POCSO
Act and Section 3(w)(1)(II), 3(2)(V)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
ACT in Cr.No.8/2021 (Spl.C.No.62/2021) of Ramapura
Police Station, Chamarajanagara District and release the
appellant on bail.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day,
the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant's counsel and the High Court
Government Pleader. Respondent No.2 has been
notified through I.O, but there is no representation on
his behalf.
2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chamarajanagar, by his order dated 28.6.2021
rejected the bail application of the appellant made
under section 439 Cr.P.C. and hence this appeal.
3. The appellant is facing trial in Special Case
No. 62/2021 on the file of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, for the offences
punishable under sections 363, 376(2)(n), 114 read
with section 34 of IPC, sections 3, 4, 16 and 17 of
POCSO Act and sections 3(w)(i)(ii) and section 3(2)(v)
and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. If the statement
given by the victim girl under section 164 Cr.P.C is
read, it becomes clear that she had crossed 17 years
of age and she had fallen in love with the appellant.
She herself forced the appellant to take her with him
and she threatened that she would end her life in case
she was not taken by him. This resulted in both of
them eloping from the house and spending some time
at other places. She does not say that the appellant
had forcible intercourse with her. In these set of
circumstances, there was no impediment for the trial
court to grant bail; in case the prosecution is able to
prove its case, the appellant may be convicted, that is
a different aspect altogether. There are sufficient
materials for granting bail and moreover the presence
of the appellant can also be secured before the court
for trial. Therefore a case for allowing the appeal is
made out. Hence, the following : -
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar,
dated 28.6.2021 in Special Case No.
62/2021 on application under section
439 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said
application is allowed.
(iii) The appellant is ordered to be released
on bail on his executing a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- and providing two sureties
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
trial court. The appellant is also
subjected to the following conditions : -
(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence
and threaten the witnesses.
(b) He shall regularly appear before the
trial court till conclusion of the trial.
(c) He shall not get involved in any
criminal case.
SD/-
JUDGE
ckl
