Sri Raghu Rao vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1520 Kant

                                     Crl.A.No.23/2021

                             1
                                                     M




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.23/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI RAGHU RAO
S/O LATE PANDU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT 1ST CROSS, R.P. ROAD
NANJANGUD TOWN
MYSURU - 571 301                         ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY NANJANGUD TOWN
       POLICE STATION
       REPRESENTED BY SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     PADMAREKHA
       D/O JAVARAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       R/AT NO.3830/4
       BEHIND SRIRAMA MANDIRA
       SRIRAMPURA
       NANJANGUD TOWN
       MYSURU - 571 301               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI.TEJAS N. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14-A(1) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND THE SCHEDULED
                                                Crl.A.No.23/2021

                                2
                                                                M




TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2020 PASSED BY VI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.396/2020.

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

                        JUDGMENT

Heard. The appellant is facing prosecution in Special

Case No.396/2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 114, 506 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(s)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment

Bill 2015 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by

Nanjanagudu Town Police in Crime No.71/2020 of their

Police Station.

2. The said case was registered against the

appellant on the basis of the complaint filed by

respondent No.2 alleging that the appellant luring her of

love and marriage sexually abused her since 10.02.2014.

It was further alleged that subsequently the appellant

tried to resile from his promise of marriage on the ground

that she belonged to the scheduled caste.

Crl.A.No.23/2021

M

3. Sri Pavan Kumar G. learned Counsel for the

appellant submits copy of the complaint filed by

respondent No.2 before the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Nanjanagudu Sub-Division on 14.09.2019.

Drawing attention of the Court to the complaint dated

14.09.2019, learned Counsel for the appellant submits

that in the complaint filed at the earliest point of time,

there were no allegations of sexual assault or caste

discrimination. He further submits that to pressurize the

appellant to marry her, the second respondent has

subsequently alleged sexual abuse and caste

discrimination.

4. Per contra, Sri Rohith B.J., learned HCGP for

respondent No.1 and Sri Tejas.N, learned Counsel for

respondent No.2 submit that respondent No.2 probably

had not disclosed about sexual abuse and caste

discrimination in her earlier complaint dated 14.09.2019

as she was willing to marry the appellant and needed

cordial life. They further submit that the charge sheet

records show that the appellant sexually abused Crl.A.No.23/2021

M

respondent No.2 on the promise of marriage and resiled

on the ground of her caste.

5. The appellant is in judicial custody since

04.09.2020. The appellant is aged 42 years and

respondent No.2 is aged 36 years. In the complaint filed

by respondent No.2 before the Deputy Superintendent of

Police at the earliest point of time, there were no

allegations of sexual abuse and caste discrimination. After

one year of such complaint, she files second complaint

alleging that she was subjected to sexual abuse since

2014. She also makes allegations of caste discrimination.

6. The trial Court in rejecting the bail application

over looked such material and pre-judged the appellant

as guilty of offences alleged against him and subjected

him to pre-trial conviction and sentence. Therefore, the

impugned order of rejection of bail requires to be set

aside. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of

rejection of bail is hereby set aside.

The appellant is granted bail in Crime No.71/2020

of Nanjanagudu Town Police Station which is now pending Crl.A.No.23/2021

M

in Special Case No.396/2020 on the file of VI Additional

District & Special Judge, Mysuru subject to the following

conditions:

i) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnish two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

ii) The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer and Court as and when required for the purpose of investigation and trial; and

iii) The appellant shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

Registry shall communicate the digital copy of this

order to the trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR