Karnataka High Court
Sharanu @Sharanappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 July, 2022
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN T HE HIG H C OU RT OF KA RNAT AKA
KAL AB UR AG I BE NC H
D AT ED T HIS T HE 2 5 T H D AY OF JUL Y, 202 2
BE FORE
THE HON'B LE MR. J UST IC E P .N.D E SA I
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200103/2022
BETWEEN:
SHARANU @ SHARANAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA NAIKODI
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. EGG RICE BUSINESS
R/O MAMDAPUR AREA OF SHAHAPUR
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI-585223.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHAHAPUR PS.
REPRESENTED THROUGH
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH KALABURAGI-585104.
2. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O DEEPAK BHANDARI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
R/O PARASAPUR VILLAGE
NOW AT CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR
SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR
DIST. YADGIRI-585223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2022 PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN SPL.
CASE NO.77/2021 AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO. 212/2021 OF SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION, PENDING
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE AT
YADGIRI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.354B, 366, 394,
376D, 504, 506, R/W SEC 34 OF IPC, AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ ST (PA) ACT-1989 AND U/SEC.
67(A) OF I.T. ACT-2008.
THIS AP PE AL C OMING ON FOR AD MIS SION T HIS
DAY , T HE C OURT D ELIVERE D THE FOLL OW I NG :
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed again st the o rder passed b y
the learned Sessions Judg e, Y adgir in Special Case
No.77/2021, wherein the p etit ion filed by th e
petitioner (app ellant herein) und er Section 439 of
Code of Crimin al Proc edure (herein after referred to
as 'Cr.P.C.' for sho rt) in Crime No.212/202 1 of
Shahap ur Police Station registered for the o ffenc es
punishable und er Sections 354B, 366, 394, 376D, 504,
506, read with Section 34 of IPC, and under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and under Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'I.T.Act' for short), 2008.
2. It is co ntend ed that on th e b asis of
newsp aper p ublished in Kann ada Prabha, dated
13.09.2021, the con cern ed j urisdiction al po lice
visited the victim and enquired her about th e
incid ent stated to have been took p lace about 8-9
months p rior to the incid ent. It is alleged th at when
victim w as waiting for the bus, at Shah apur b us
sta nd, as there was lockdown, only few b uses were
plying, as the buses w ere not available and victim
sta yed in the b us stand itself, at about 1:00 a.m.
mid nig ht. T his petition er along with three oth er
accused cam e there and asked her to accomp any and
she rep lied as to why sh e should accom pany
accused , at that time, all accu sed abus ed her b y
taking her cas te and forc ibly took the victim in their
car near a b ridge situ ated near Tip pan alli limits and
they comm itted forcib le sexual intercou rse on her. It
is also alleg ed th at th e said act was record ed.
Somehow the video w as le aked and m atter w as
publis hed in the newsp aper. Based on that,
complaint cam e to be reg istered . Police have
investig ated the matter and filed the Charg e Sh eet
ag ainst all the f our accused for the offences stated
abo ve. The p etition fo r bail rejected by Sessio ns
Court. Hence, this p etition.
3. Heard S ri.Mah antesh H. Desai, learned
counsel for th e a ppellant and Sri.Gururaj V. Hasilkar,
learn ed HCGP for the respond ent-State .
4. Learned counsel for th e app ellan t
contend ed that the Charg e Sheet has alread y been
filed and ap pellan t is in custod y for long tim e. A
direction b e given to the trial co urt to exped ite th e
trial in a time bond m anner and he will not press th e
other conten tions in the petition at th is stag e as
urg ed in the memorand um of ap peal. He further
contend ed that liberty b e g iven to the ap pellant to
move the b ail sub seq uently.
5. Learned HCGP also stated th at Charge
Sheet has already been filed an d case has alread y
been comm itted to th e S essions C ourt fo r trial.
6. Admitted ly the Charg e Sheet is filed under
sectio ns 354B, 366, 394, 376D, 504, 506, r/w Section 34 of
IPC, and under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va),
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 67(A)
of the I.T.Act. The offences are heinous one.
7. Looking into the nature of the allegatio ns
and the Charg e Sh eet and the nature of th e order
passed b y the learned S essions Judg e, at this stag e
the app ellan t h as not m ade out any g round s to grant
bail. Th is Cou rt n eed no t g ive any lib erty to file
subsequent bail petition . However, the ap pellant is
entitled to file s ubsequ ent b ail petition if there are
any changed c ircumstances m ad e out. Hence, I
proceed to pass the follow ing:
ORDER
Appeal is d ismissed .
As the accused is in judicial cu stod y, the Trial
Court is d irected to exped ite th e trial by looking into
its pend ency of case on its file and giving priority to
the cases wherein the accu sed is in custody and
conclude the trial as early as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
s du
