Shri Vittal S/O Bagappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5527 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 6 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                          BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100310 OF 2021

   BETWEEN:

   SHRI VITTAL S/O. BAGAPPA KARENNAVAR,
   AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: ARMY SERVICE,
   R/O: KANASAGERI VILLAGE,
   TQ: GOKAK 591 307, DIST: BELAGAVI.
   NOW, 106 INfANTRY BATTALION (TA) PARA,
   C/O. 56 APO.
                                            ...A PPELLANT

   (BY SRI RAKESH S . HATTIKATAGI , A DV. REPRESENTED
   Sri. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, AD V.)

   AND:

   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION,
   REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
   DHARWAD BENCH - 580011.

   2.    SMT. RENUKA BHIMAPPA BABALI
   AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
   R/O: KHANAPUR, NOW KANASAGERI VILLAGE,
   TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN 591 307.
                                          ... RES PONDENTS

   (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP FOR R1
    R2- SERVED)
                                   2




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF
THE SCHED ULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 AND U/S 439
OF CR.P.C. S EEK ING TO ALLOW T HIS APPEAL, SET
ASIDE THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL        DISTRICT   AND  SESSIONS   COURT,
BELAGAVI (REGISTERED IN GOKAK RURAL P.S . CR.
NO.136/ 2021 FOR THE A LLEGED OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 450, 376-D, 506, 34 OF I PC AND S ECTIONS
3(2)( va) , 3( 2)(v) OF THE SCHEDULE CASTES AND THE
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT 1989, AND ENLARGED THE APPELLANT ON
REGULAR BAI L PENDING TRIAL OF THE CAS E.

    THIS   CRIMINAL              APPEAL COMI NG ON            F OR
ORDERS, THIS DAY,               THE COURT DELIVERED           THE
FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Accused No.1 has filed this appeal challenging

the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.924/2021 by the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,

whereunder the bail application filed by the

appellant/accused No.1 in Crime No.136/2021 of

Gokak Rural Police Station for the offences under

Sections 448, 376D, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity)

and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST Act', for

brevity) came to be rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the

victim lady has filed complaint stating that she

belongs to Hindu Bedar caste and her marriage with

one Bhimappa Babali was performed about six years

ago and after marriage she led her marital life for a

period of one month only and thereafter she is staying

in her parents house. It is further stated that the

appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 have their

lands adjoining to the land of the complainant and

they belong to Kuruba caste. It is further stated that

on 19.08.2021 at about 4.00 p.m. when the

complainant was alone in the house, at that time

appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 entered the

said house under pretext of buying chickens and soon

thereafter the appellant/accused No.1 made her to lie

on the floor in the kitchen room and had forcible

sexual intercourse on her and thereafter, accused

No.2, who was standing at the door, also had forcible

sexual intercourse with the complainant. Thereafter,

the appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2

threatened the complainant to kill her, if she discloses

the same to anybody. Thereafter, the complainant

informed about the incident to her parents and after

discussion, she filed the complaint. The said

complaint came to be registered in Crime

No.136/2021 in Gokak Rural Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 448, 376D, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of

SC and ST Act. The appellant/accused No.1 came to

be arrested on 21.08.2021. The appellant/accused

No.1 filed Crl.Misc.No.924/2021 seeking bail and the

same came to be rejected by the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by

order dated 22.10.2021. Therefore, the appellant has

challenged the said order in the present appeal.

Thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed against the

appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the

offences punishable under Sections 450, 376D, 506

read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)

of the SC and ST Act.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for appellant/accused No.1 and learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

Nos.1-State.

In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.2

remained absent and unrepresented.

4. The learned counsel for the

appellant/accused No.1 would contend that the doctor

who examined the victim lady, did not find any

injuries over her body and genetalia and therefore it

can be said that it is a consensual sex. It is his

further submission that, there might be some love

affair between the complainant and accused No.2. It

is his further submission that the appellant/accused

No.1 is serving in defense. As the charge sheet is

filed, appellant is not required for custodial

interrogation. Without considering all these aspects,

the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail

petition of the appellant, which requires interference

by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the

appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court

Government Pleader would contend that the offence

alleged against the appellant is heinous offence

punishable with imprisonment for life. The Doctor,

who examined the victim lady, has opined that, sexual

violence cannot be ruled out. The final opinion of the

Doctor is reserved pending receipt of FSL report. The

charge sheet material shows prima facie case against

the appellant for the offence alleged against him.

Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition of the

appellant, which does not require interference by this

Court. With this, he prayed for dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State, this Court has gone through

the charge sheet records.

7. The accusation leveled against the

appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 is that, they

entered in the house of the complainant-victim lady

and made her lie and one after the other, they had

forcible sexual intercourse on her. The doctor, who

examined the victim lady on the same day, did not

find any injuries over her body and genetalia of the

victim lady. He has opined that, as there are no

genital injuries and physical injuries, there are no sign

of use of force. The said medical report does not

rule-out possibility of sexual intercourse on the victim

lady. Now the charge sheet is filed and therefore the

appellant/accused No.1 is not required for custodial

interrogation. The appellant/accused No.1 is working

in Army. Without considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition

of the appellant/accused No.1, which requires

interference by this Court. The main objection of the

prosecution is that, if the appellant is granted bail, he

will threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses. The said objection can be met with by

imposing stringent conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the

view that there are valid grounds for setting aside the

impugned order and granting bail subject to certain

terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order

dated 22.10.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.924/2021 by the learned III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is set aside. The bail

petition of the appellant/accused No.1 stands allowed.

The appellant/accused No.1 is ordered to be released

on bail in Crime No.136/2021 of Gokak Rural Police

Station, subject to the following conditions:

i. The appellant/accused No.1 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii. The appellant/accused No.1 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii. The appellant/accused No.1 shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

S MM & K m v