Sri Beeresh T vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2157 Kant

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Sri Beeresh T
S/o Late Thippeshappa
Aged about 22 years
R/o Bannikod Village
Harihar Taluk
Davanagere District - 577203.
                                       ...Appellant

(By Sri. Rudrappa .P - Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       SHO, Women Police Station
       Davanagere - 577003
       Represented by
       The State Public Prosecutor
       High Court of Karnataka
       Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.     Sri. Mangajjara Gangadharappa
       S/o. Mylappa
       Aged about 55 years
       Resident of Bannikodu Village
                             2


     Harihar Taluk
     Davanagere District - 577003.
                                          ...Respondents

(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K, HCGP for R-1;
    Sri. Umashankar F. Megundi - Advocate for R-2)

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2)
of Prevention Of Atrocities Act 1989, praying to, set
aside the order on bail application passed by the
II-Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Davanagere in S.C. No.63/2021 dated 06.04.2021;
allow the appeal thereby enlarge the appellant /
accused on bail in Crime No.31/2021 now converted as
S.C.No.63/2021 for the offence punishable under
Sections 376, 363, 366(A) of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO
Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST
(P.A) Act, registered by Women Police Station,
Davanagere the same is pending before the II-Addl.
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Davanagere.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for Admission,
through video conference this day, the Court delivered
the following:

                    JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant /

accused in S.C.No.63/2021 seeking to set aside the

order passed by the Court of the II Addl. District &

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere in

S.C.No.63/2021 and thereby seeking to allow the appeal

and enlarge the appellant / accused on bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Rudrappa P for

the appellant / accused, learned counsel Shri

Umashankar F. Megundi for Respondent No.2 who

appear through video conferencing and the learned

HCGP for Respondent No.1 who is present before court

physically.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant during the course of his arguments through

video conferencing, that accused who is the appellant

before this court is an innocent person and he has not

at all committed the alleged offences. But based upon

the complaint filed by the complainant, the case in

Cr.No.31/2021 has been registered by the first

respondent / police by recording an FIR initially for

offences under Section 363 of the IPC. Subsequent to

registration of the crime against the accused, the I.O.

has taken up the case for investigation and thorough

investigation has been done and laid the charge-sheet

before the Committal Court. The Committal Court had

accepted the charge-sheet and took cognizance of

offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC, besides

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for

offences under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of the

SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Subsequent to laying the

charge-sheet against the accused, the case has been

committed to the Special Court, which court registered

the case in S.C.No.63/2021. This is the first limb of

argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant.

4. The second limb of argument advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant is the appellant is

nowhere connected to the alleged offences despite of

which, he has been lugged into the aforesaid crime. But

the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. reveals that only on the

basis of a story created by the complainant without

there being any material evidence to reveal the same,

the alleged offences have been leveled against the

appellant. But there is no strong material to show that

the accused has committed the alleged offences. But

the accused is in judicial custody since from the date of

his arrest and his mother is suffering from old age

ailments. It is submitted that the liberty of an

individual is precious and the said liberty of a person

accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies

of the case. Further, the accused is in judicial custody

from 21.02.2021 till date and moreover, he is the only

bread earner of his family and if the accused is kept

behind bars for a longer period, his family members will

be ruined in the society.

5. The last limb of the argument advanced by the

learned counsel is that the accused is ready to abide by

any terms and conditions while granting bail. On all

these premise, the learned counsel for the appellant /

accused seeks to allow the appeal and consequently to

set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in

S.C.No.63/2021 dated 06.04.2021 rejecting the bail

petition filed by the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

and consequently to enlarge the appellant / accused on

bail.

6. Learned HCGP for Respondent No.1, counter to

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant contends that the accused is involved in

offences of abduction of the victim girl aged 17 years

and thereby committing heinous offence under Section

376 IPC inclusive of aggravated penetrative act under

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and also offences

under the Special Enactment of SC & ST (POA) Act.

These are all the offences committed by the

appellant / accused as revealed from the charge-sheet

made by the I.O. Whereas the accused has committed

heinous offences which are also serious in nature. He

contends that there are prima facie material against the

accused and hence, the appellant / accused does not

deserve for bail, as there is no substance in the

contention made by the learned counsel for the

appellant.

7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 who

appears through video conferencing submits in

conformity with the arguments of the learned HCGP for

the State and submits that the accused has committed

heinous offences of abduction and also sexual

intercourse on a minor girl aged 17 years and so also

heinous offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act

inclusive of offences under the Special Enactment of the

SC & ST Act. He submits that a cursory glance of the

materials secured by the I.O. reveals the act of the

accused committed on the minor girl aged 17 years.

Therefore, there are strong prima facie materials against

the accused of committing the alleged offences.

Lastly, the learned counsel submits that if the

accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly

there shall be adverse impact on the society. On all

these premise, learned counsel for Respondent No.2

seeks for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant /

accused.

8. It is in this context of the contentions taken by

the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the

counter made by the learned HCGP for R1 and so also

the submissions of the learned counsel for R2 made in

conformity with the submission of the learned HCGP,

who has a right to represent the victim / complainant /

dependant relating to offences under the Special

Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, it is seen that

initially the FIR was recorded by the police dated

19.02.2021 in Cr.No.31/2021 for offences under

Section 363 of IPC, 1860. The gist of the FIR reveals

that the victim girl was studying IX Standard and she

was staying in the house itself. But the accused had

abducted her and had sexual intercourse on the victim

girl aged 17 years. On 18.02.2021 at around 12.30

p.m. the victim girl had been to C.G. Hospital,

Davanagere for a Doctor's consultation for her mother

who was suffering from old age ailments. But she did

not return to her house after attending the work.

Subsequently, the family members of the victim girl had

made an attempt to search her but she could not be

traced and their search had gone in vain. Initially, a

missing complaint was filed relating to the victim girl,

wherein the case in Cr.No.31/2021 was registered for

offences under Section 363 of the IPC, 1860.

9. During the course of investigation, the I.O. has

made an attempt to record the statement of the victim

as contemplated under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

When she was alone in the house, the accused had

come to her house and forcibly committed sexual

intercourse on her. The accused had taken the victim

girl to Chowdamma Temple situated in the limits of

Hadadi village and had married her. Subsequently,

even after abduction of the victim girl who is a minor

and also the accused married her and committed

heinous offence of rape on her and also aggravated

sexual assault as revealed under Section 6 of the

POCSO Act, 2012.

10. It is relevant to refer to the charge-sheet laid

by the I.O. against the accused. The accused has

committed heinous offences under Sections 363, 376 of

IPC besides Section 6 of the POCSO Act and so also

under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST

(POA) Act, 1989. The offences appear to be serious in

nature as well as heinous in nature. Therefore it is said

that strong prima facie material finds place in the

record, against the accused. The same has been

collected by complying with the relevant provisions of

the Cr.P.C. and laid the charge-sheet. If the accused is

supposed to be granted bail, certainly he will come in

the way of the prosecution case and destroy the

evidence. This contention which is urged by the learned

HCGP, cannot be ruled out as regards the offences that

too, heinous offences lugged against the accused. The

victim girl who is aged 17 years cannot become a chattel

in the hands of the accused person who has committed

heinous offence against her. If the accused is released

on bail, certainly there shall be adverse impact on the

society.

11. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I

am of the considered opinion that the accused does not

deserve to be granted bail. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused

under Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby dismissed.

Consequently, the order passed by the Trial Court in

S.C.No.63/2021 dated 06.04.2021 rejecting the bail

petition filed by the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

is hereby confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KS