Karnataka High Court
Ravikumara vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1613 OF 2021
BETWEEN
RAVIKUMARA,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KENCHAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE,
KORA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 101,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT. .... APPELLANT
[BY SRI.CHETHAN.B, ADVOCATE]
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADHUGIRI POLICE
MADHUGIRI - 572 132.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. VENKATASWAMY,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF DASAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
I.D.HALLI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132.
TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ....RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. LEENA.C.SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R-1]
R-2 SERVED.
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2021 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-1) AT
TUMAKURU IN CRL. MISC. NO.1240/2020 WHEREBY THE
APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRPC SEEKING REGULAR BAIL CAME TO BE DISMISSED
AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.134/2020
registered at Madhugiri Police station, Tumkur. Petition
seeking bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, has been
rejected by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge
(FTSC-1), Tumakuru, in Crl.Mis.No.1240/2020, vide order
dated 11.01.2021.
2. This appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(2) of
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act 2015 (for short, herein after referred as
SC/ST (POA) Act), praying to set aside the impugned order
dated 11.01.2021 and to enlarge the appellant on bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-
state and perused the material on record.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits
that respondent No.2/de-facto complainant has been served
on 25.10.2021. However, there is no representation.
5. It is the case of prosecution that the victim was a
minor aged below 18 years and she belong to Scheduled
caste. She was befriended by the accused while she was
travelling in a bus, in which the accused was working as a
cleaner. The accused by inducing her, took her to Chitradurga
on 08.10.2020 and forcibly tied thali to her in Shri
Shaneshwara Temple. Thereafter, on 09.10.2020 took her to
Chilamattur Mandal Demakethipalli village in Hindupura taluk,
Anantapura district in Andhra Pradesh, wherein he detained
her in one Shri Chowdeshwari/Badrakali temple till
13.12.2020 and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her
several times.
6. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences
punishable under Sections 344, 376(2) (n), 363 of IPC, under
Section 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, under Section 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(2), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act
2015.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended the allegation that the appellant has committed
sexual intercourse with the victim is false. The FSL report is
negative and does not support the case of prosecution. He
submits that the appellant is a young boy aged about 19
years and he is languishing in judicial custody for more than
one year. He further submits that there are no criminal
antecedents against the appellant and he is ready and willing
to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, seeks to allow the
appeal.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C
clearly disclose that the appellant has kidnapped the victim
and forcibly tied thali and thereafter repeatedly committed
sexual intercourse on her. She further contends that in the
event relief is granted, the appellant may influence the victim
and thereby hamper the case of prosecution.
9. The material on record disclose that the date of
birth of the victim is 20.02.2003 and therefore she was aged
about 17 years 8 months as on the date of commission of
offence. The complaint is lodged by the grandfather of the
victim girl on 10.10.2020 stating that on 08.10.2020 at about
8:30 a.m., the victim went out of the house to bring water
and did not return. Therefore, they searched everywhere and
suspecting the role of the appellant herein, lodged complaint
against him. After the victim was secured, her statement was
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as well as under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. The victim has stated that while travelling in
SBT bus, in which the accused was working as a cleaner, both
of them got acquainted with each other. On 07.10.2020 he
called her to come to Madhugiri and when she refused, he
told that he will commit suicide, if she does not accompany
him. On the next day i.e., on 08.10.2020 she went to
Madhugiri bus stand, from where she along with the accused
went to Tumkur and from there to Chitradurga, wherein in a
temple the accused forcibly tied thali to her. On the same day
they went to Lepakshi in Andra Pradesh, wherein they stayed
together in Badrakali temple for two months and there the
accused committed sexual intercourse with her.
10. In view of the above statement of the victim, it
cannot be said that there is no prima-facie case against the
appellant. However, prosecution has to establish the charges
in a full fledged trial. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected
the bail petition during crime stage, as investigation was not
yet completed. It is observed in the order that so far the
investigation is not yet completed and the charge sheet is not
filed and therefore if the petitioner is released on bail, he may
terrorize the victim and her family members and also he may
abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court, then fair
investigation cannot be conducted.
11. Now the investigation is completed and charge
sheet is also filed. The statement of the victim is also
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as well as 164 of
Cr.P.C. Victim has attained majority now. The accused is a
young boy. He is in judicial custody from 15.12.2020. He is
not required for further investigation/interrogation. He has
undertaken to abide by conditions and also to regularly
appear before the trial Court. Hence by imposing suitable
conditions, relief sought in this appeal can be granted.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The order dated 11.01.2021 passed in Crl. Mis.
No.1240/2020 on the file of the Court of Addl. District and
Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru is set aside.
Appellant/accused in Crime No.134/2020 of Madhugiri Police
Station, Tumakuru is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject
to following conditions:
i) Appellant shall execute a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only) with two sureties for like-sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) Appellant shall furnish proof of his residential
address and shall inform the Investigation
Officer/Court, in case of change in the
address.
iii) Appellant shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
iv) Appellant shall not put any threat to the
victim and shall not induce or influence her
in any manner.
v) Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the trial Court without prior permission of
the learned trial Judge.
vi) Appellant shall appear before the trial Court
on all dates of hearing without fail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
