Shri Basavaraj Alias Babu Siddra ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6059 Kant

                             1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100302/2021

   BETWEEN:

   SHRI BASAVARAJ
   @ BABU SIDDRAI MAYANNAVAR
   AGE 25 YEARS , OCC AGRI CULT URE,
   R/O.KANSAGERI V ILLAGE
   TQ GOKAK, DIST BELAGAVI- 590001
                                           ...A PPELLANT
   BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

   AND:

   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE ST ATION
   R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA BENCH
   AT DHARWAD

   2.   SMT. RENUKA BHI MAPPA BABALI
   AGE 28 YEARS , OCC HOUS EWIFE
   R/O.KHANA PUR NOW KANASGERI VI LLAGE
   TQ GOKAK DIST BELAGAVI- 590001.
                                     ... RES PONDENTS
   (BY SRI. RAMESH B.CHI GARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
   RESPOND ENT NO.2 SERVED)

          THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF
   SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF A TROCITIES) ACT ,
   SEEKING TO A LLOW THE APPEA L AN D THE APPELLANT
   BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN CONN ECTION WITH GOKA K
   P.S . FIR CRIME N O. 136/ 2021 DATED 22/ 10/2021 F OR
                               2




OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE U/S 448, 376D, 506 R/W 34
OF IPC AND U/S 3(2)( v)(va) OF S C/ST (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPELLANT .

     THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

Accused No.2 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.2

in Crime No.136/2021 of Gokak Rural Police

Station for the offences under Section 448,

376D and 506 read with Section 34 of The

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 short) 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

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 accused No.1 and accused No.2

entered the said house under pretext of buying

chickens and soon thereafter 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,

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 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and

Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC and ST Act. The

appellant/accused No.2 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 accused

No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 450, 376D and 506

read with Section 34 of IPC and 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.2

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.2 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, as charge sheet is

filed, the 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.2 and accused No.1 is

that, they entered the house of the

complainant-victim lady and made her to 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.2 is not

required for custodial interrogation. Without

considering all these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition of

the appellant/accused No.2, 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. Accused No.1 has already

been granted bail by this Court in Criminal

Appeal No.100310/2021 and therefore, the

appellant is entitled for bail on the ground of

parity as he is similarly placed to that of

accused No.1.

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.2 stands allowed. The

appellant/accused No.2 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.2 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.2 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii. The appellant/accused No.2 shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-

operate in speedy disposal of the case.

SD/-

JUDGE

km v