Shri Durgarao S/O Nageshwara Rao vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3257 Kant

                          -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100187 OF 2021

BETWEEN
SHRI DURGARAO S/O NAGESHWARA RAO
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SRIRAM NAGAR, TQ GANGAVATHI,
KOPPAL-583227.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION
      REPRESENTED BY
      ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011

2.    SMT. RENUKA W/O HANAMANTH NIRMANVI
      AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
      R/O. GUNTHAKAL CAMP,
      SRIRAM NAGAR, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
      DIST. KOPPAL-583227
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARGI, ADV., FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2021 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE AT KOPPAL IN FIR
                              -2-



(SC/ST) NO.292/2021 DISMISSING THE BAIL APPLICATION FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 354A, 376,
511 IPC AND U/S 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA)
AT 1989 (AMENDED AT 2015) AND CONSEQUENTLY, RELEASE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.202/2021 OF
GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 354(a), 376, 511 IPC AND
UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(V-a) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT 1989 (AMENDED AT 2015).

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (POA) Act") for

setting aside the order passed by the Principal District and

Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal in FIR (SC/ST) No.292/

2021 whereby the Special Judge has rejected the bail

petition of the appellant herein.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the

complainant is a married woman and since ten years she is

residing in Gunthakal Camp along with her husband,

mother-in-law and children. It is alleged that the appellant

was acquainted with the complainant and he used to follow

her for last two years and he used to tease her and under

the impression that he may improve his conduct, the

complainant did not report the matter to anybody. It is

alleged that on 26.06.2021 at 4.30 p.m., the complainant

went to attend the call of nature near fallow land of

Basayya and at that time, appellant followed her on a

motorcycle having knowledge that she belongs to

Scheduled Caste Community and stopped her and pulled

her sari and attempted to commit rape on her. It is also

alleged that lot of tussle underwent amongst them and in

the said process, the appellant has sustained injuries to his

left eye. It is alleged the accused abused the complainant

stating that how she can refuse to have sexual relationship

with him being of scheduled caste woman. When she cried

for help, Hanumesh and Hanamanth came there and

pacified the dispute. Later on, she after discussing with her

husband regarding the incident, lodged complaint against

the appellant-accused. On the basis of the complaint,

crime was registered in Crime No.202/2021 for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 354(a), 376, 511

of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of

SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant was arrested on

27.06.2021 and was subjected to medical examination

subsequently, and then he was remanded to judicial

custody. He has also moved regular bail petition before

the learned Special Judge in FIR (SC/ST) No.292/2021 and

the learned Special Judge by order dated 28.07.2021

rejected the bail petition. Hence, the appellant being

aggrieved by the rejection of bail petition has filed this

appeal for setting aside the impugned order of rejection of

bail and sought for releasing him on bail by allowing this

appeal.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for

respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2

has also submitted his statement of objections. Perused

the records.

4. Learned counsel for appellant would contend

that there is delay in lodging the complaint and only after

discussion, the compliant came to be lodged and there is

also delay in sending the injured complainant as well as

the accused for medical examination. He would contend

that the ingredients of Section 376 of IPC are not at all

attracted and the observation of the learned Special Judge

regarding rapture of hymen was unwarranted as she is a

married woman and the accused is in custody since

26.01.2020 and he is no more required by the

investigation agency. Hence, he would contend that he

may be enlarged on bail. He undertakes to abide by all the

conditions to be imposed by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent-state and learned counsel for respondent No.2

have seriously objected for granting bail to the appellant

contending that there is prima facie material evidence as

against present appellant. They would also contend that

the appellant has attempted for rape on a married woman

having knowledge that she is belonging to SC community

and also abused her with reference to her caste. They

would also contend that the matter is still at the stage of

investigation and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail,

there is every possibility of appellant threatening the

complainant, her minor children as well as husband and as

such, they would seek for rejection of the appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that the main allegations against the

appellant are that for last two years, he was following the

complainant regularly and he was expecting sexual favour

from her. The allegations further disclose that on

26.06.2021 at 4.30 p.m., when the complainant had been

to fallow land of one Basayya for attending the call of

nature, the appellant tried to rape her and in the said

process, he outraged her modesty. No doubt the

allegations of the complaint itself establish that there is no

penetration and prima facie the provisions of Section 376

of IPC are not applicable. But however, the allegation itself

discloses that he has attempted on victim having

knowledge that she is a married woman having three

children. The provision of Section 376 of IPC is not directly

applicable but the provisions Section 511 of IPC are

applicable. Apart from that, the provisions of Section

354(a) are directly applicable. Further, the appellant made

allegations against the complainant with reference to her

caste and expecting that she is a property, which shows

the mentality of the appellant. Admittedly, the matter is

still at the stage of investigation. The complaint allegations

further reveal that during the tussle, the appellant did

sustain injuries to his left eye and the same is supported

by the medical evidence. Looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, at this stage, there is prima

facie material evidence as against the appellant. Matter is

still at the stage of investigation and in case, the appellant

is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of appellant

tampering with the prosecution witnesses and jumping on

bail. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and needs to be

dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

yan