Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra @ Kumara @ ... vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
Crl.A.No.1435/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1435/2021
BETWEEN:
RAGHAVENDRA @ KUMARA
@ KOTHAMBARIKUMARA
S/O LATE GANGADHAR @ GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE
RAJAGOPALNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 058 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE
AT HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. POORNIMA N.L.
W/O LOKESHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NO-RENT HOUSE OF VENKATESHAPPA
DOMBARAHALLI VILLAGE
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
NAGALURU - 562 162
Crl.A.No.1435/2021
2
PERMANENT AT
JAYAPURA CROSS
TUMKUR TOWN & DISTRICT
PIN - 572 101 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2021 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.911/2021 BY HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.535/2017 OF
MADANAYAKANHALLI POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504, 506, 376(d) 363
R/W SECTION 35 OF ICP AND SECTION 3(2)(5) OF SC/ST
ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
SPL.C.C.NO.80/2018.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application
for grant of bail, accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No.80/2018 on
the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru has
preferred the above appeal.
3. The appellant, along with three others, is
facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.80/2018 for the charges for
Crl.A.No.1435/2021
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506,
376(D), 363 R/W 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 on the basis of the complaint of
P.W.1.
4. Case of the prosecution in brief is as
follows:
On 16.11.2017 at 7.00 p.m., the accused with a
common intention trespassed into the house of P.W.1
when herself and her husband P.W.2 were at home.
Then they assaulted P.W.2 and threatening both of
them of their lives, accused Nos.1 to 4 committed gang
rape on her and then they kidnapped P.W.2.
5. The appellant filed Crl.P.No.5744/2018
before this Court seeking bail. The same came to be
dismissed on 26.03.2019 on merits.
6. The appellant is seeking bail on the
following alleged changed circumstances:
(i) The appellant is in judicial custody since last
three and a half years and trial is not concluded.
Crl.A.No.1435/2021
(ii) P.W.2, husband of the victim has turned
hostile.
(iii) Evidence of P.W.1 is not credible.
7. So far as delay in trial, this Court in
Crl.P.No.5744/2018 dated 26.03.2019 directed the trial
Court to dispose of the matter within six months.
However, thereafter, proceedings of all the Courts are
hampered due to Covid-19 pandemic. Even then as
submitted, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined.
8. Even if P.W.2 has turned hostile, what has
to be seen is the evidence of victim/P.W.1 and whether
that is corroborated by the other independent
witnesses. This Court has already observed that the
medical evidence is highly incriminating.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader
made available for the perusal of this Court the medical
examination report, which shows that there were
several injuries on the private parts of the victim and
she was very much exhausted when she was examined.
Crl.A.No.1435/2021
10. If P.W.2 lacked loyalty to P.W.1, it cannot
become a ground to grant bail to the appellant. The
material on record at this stage prima facie shows the
barbaric crime shocking the conscience of the society is
committed against the victim.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another1 has held that in the matters involving heinous
crime, the detention of the accused for more than one
year itself cannot be the sole consideration for grant of
bail. Considering all such aspects, the trial Court has
rightly rejected the application. This Court does not find
any illegality in the said order. Therefore, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
pgg
(2018) 12 SCC 129
