Yellappa S/O Mallappa Hadapad vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7964 Kant

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200045/2022

BETWEEN:
YELLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA HADAPAD
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
R/O KUDARI SALWADAGI
TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR 586123
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       R/BY ADDL SPP
       KALABURAGI BENCH-585106
       (THROUGH B.BAGEWADI P.S
       DIST. VIJAYAPUR 586121)

2.     SOMASHEKARA
       S/O YELAGURADAPPA KALLIMANI
       AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
       R/O KUDARI SALWADAGI,
       TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
       DIST. VIJAYAPURA 586123
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI SANTOSH H. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
OF   SCHEDULED   CASTES    AND   THE   SCHEDULED   TRIBES
                                    2




(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989,                  PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2021 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.969/2021 BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-
I (POCSO) AT VIJAYAPUR, AND GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO
THE    APPELLANT       /ACCUSED    NO.3    IN     SPL.CASE       (POCSO)
NO.30/2021, (BASAVANA BAGEWADI POLICE STATION FIR
(CRIME) NO.82/2021) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.
363,   376(2)(i)(n),    354(a)(i)(ii)   R/W     34   OF   IPC,    U/SEC.
(3)(2)(va) OF SC/ST P.A ACT 2015 AND SEC. 12, 17, 5(L) R/W
6 OF POCSO ACT 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
SESSIONS      JUDGE       FTSC-I        (POCSO)      AT    VIJAYAPUR,
DIST.VIJAYAPUR.


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


                         JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused No.3 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in Crime

No.82/2021, of Basavana Bagewadi Police Station, pending

in Spl.Case (POCSO) No.30/2021 on the file of Additional

Sessions Judge FTSC-I (POCSO) at Vijayapur, district

Vijayapur, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 363, 376(2)(i)(n), 354(a)(i)(ii) r/w 34 of IPC,

under Section (3)(2)(va) of the Act and sections 12, 17,

5(L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012, on the basis of the first

information lodged by the informant-Somashekhar, brother

of the deceased victim No.1.

2. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, learned

Counsel for the appellant and Sri H. S. Shankar, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3 and he has

not committed any offences as alleged against him. He has

been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis and

was apprehended on 22.05.2021. Since then, he is in

judicial custody. Initially, the brother of victim No.1,

Somashekhar lodged the first information on 14.05.2021

alleging that victim No.1 is his sister and that she was

induced by accused No.1 in the guise of loving her and

committed sexual assault, knowingly that victim No.1

belong to scheduled caste. It is further alleged that he tied

the hands of both the victim girls and pushed them into

the well, as a result both have died. Therefore, the

informant requested the police to register the case and to

initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the

police have registered the case in Crime No.82/2021

against accused No.1 and took up investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that after investigation charge sheet came to be filed

against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that the present

appellant had demanded sexual favour from victim No.2

who is also a minor and belonging to scheduled caste.

Therefore, the only allegation against the appellant is that

he demanded sexual favour from victim No.2. Charge

sheet and supplementary charge sheet discloses that it

was accused No.1 who committed sexual assault on victim

No.1 and abetted the victims to commit suicide by jumping

into the well. No such allegations are made against the

appellant. Appellant is not required for further

investigation. Since charge sheet and supplementary

charge sheet is already filed, there are no allegations

against the present appellant to invoke either section 376

of IPC or other provisions of POCSO Act. He also submitted

that accused No.2, against whom serious allegations were

made for having induced accused No.1 to commit sexual

assault, by providing a mobile phone, is already enlarged

on bail. The appellant is aged about 29 years. He has no

criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the

address mentioned in the cause title to the appeal and is

ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that

would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow

the appeal .

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 opposing the appeal

submitted that serious allegations are made against the

appellant for having committed the offence. Investigation

is completed and charge sheet and supplementary charge

sheet are filed. Looking into the seriousness of the offence,

appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, even

though present through video conference, has not chosen

to address his arguments.

7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

8. Serious allegations are made against the

accused for having committed the offence. Initially, first

information came to be lodged by the brother of the victim

No.1 against accused No.1, making specific allegation of

sexual assault and causing death of victim Nos.1 and 2 by

tying their hands and pushing them into the well. After

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against

accused Nos.1 to 3 making specific allegations against

each of them. Allegation made against accused No.1 is of

serious nature of committing repeated sexual assault on

victim No.1 by promising her to marry, knowingly that she

belong to scheduled caste and inducing her to have an

affair with him by providing a mobile phone but refused to

marry her and also abused and abetted the victims to

commit suicide. The allegation against the present

appellant is that he repeatedly insisted victim No.2 for

sexual favour. Even in the supplementary charge sheet

section 302 of IPC is dropped and invoked section 305 of

IPC. Admittedly, investigation is already completed and

charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet came to

filed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the

appellant is required for any further investigation or for

any other purpose except to ensure his presence before

the Trial Court. Even though, learned High Court

Government Pleader submitted that if the appellant is

enlarged on bail, there may be chances of appellant trying

to threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses,

reasonable conditions may be imposed. The bar for grant

of anticipatory bail under the special enactment will not

come in the way of granting such relief, as his presence for

custodial interrogation is not necessary and no serious

allegation of committing any crime is alleged against the

appellant. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is

entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which

will take care of the apprehension expressed by the

learned High Court Government Pleader that the appellant

may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution

witnesses.

9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant-accused No.3 is ordered to be

enlarged on bail in Spl.Case (POCSO)No.30/2021 Crime

No.82/2021 of Basavana Bagewadi Police Station, on

obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the

following conditions:

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

In case, the appellant violates any of the conditions

as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial

Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of

the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties

and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to

be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the

sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR