Laxmanna @ Laxmappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9025 Kant

                           1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       BEFORE

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

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200021/2022


BETWEEN:

LAXMANNA @ LAXMAPPA
S/O SADASHIVAPPA SANNA
BHIMASHAPPANOUR
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
& DRIVER, R/O: GOPALPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: GURUMATKAL, DIST: YADGIRI.
                                         ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       THROUGH GURUMATKAL POLICE
       STATION, DIST: YADGIRI, REP. BY
       ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       KALABURAGI BENCH - 585107.

2.     LAKSHMAN S/O HANAMANTH
       LONDENAVAR
       AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/O GOPALPUR VILLAGE
       TQ: GURUMATKAL
                               2


      DIST: YADGIRI - 585 214.

                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GURURAJ.V.HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14-A OF THE SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE   IMPUGNED        BAIL   REJECTION     ORDER     DATED
03.01.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS
JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT AT YADGIRI IN SPL. CASE
NO.51/2021,      BY    ALLOWING     THIS    APPEAL    AND
CONSEQUENTLY THERE BY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT, ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.88/2021, (PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT AT
YADGIRI) REGISTERED BY THE GURUMATKAL POLICE
STATION,   FOR    THE    OFFENCES   PUNISHABLE       UNDER
SECTIONS 3(1)(R)(S)(W) AND (i) AND (ii), 3(2)(V) OF SC
/ ST (PA) NEW ACT 2015 AND SECTIONS 366, 366-A,
376(2)(n), 504, 506 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 6 OF
POCSO ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              3


                       JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused is before this Court praying to

set aside the impugned order rejecting the bail dated

03.01.2022 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge,

Special Court at Yadgiri in Spl.Case.No.51/2021 and

consequently enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime

No.88/2021 (pending on the file of the Court of the

Session Judge, Special Court at Yadgiri) registered by the

Gurumitkal Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w) & (i & ii), 3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST Act')

and under Sections 366, 366-A, 376(2)(n), 504, 506 of

IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on the basis of

the first information lodged by informant-Lakshman.

2. Heard Sri. Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri. Gururaj V.Hasilkar, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused

the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any

offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the

matter without any basis. The appellant was apprehended

on 17.06.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

The victim is a major but her age is shown as 16 years.

She has not supported the case of the prosecution even

during the investigation. The father of the victim lodged

the false complaint against the appellant and he has

forcibly performed the marriage of his daughter with

CW.20. As victim could not lead her life with CW.20, she

requested the appellant to take her away and to save her

life. Therefore, the appellant had taken the victim with

him. He has not committed any offence as alleged.

However, the appellant and the victim are having liking

towards each other. The investigation is completed and the

charge sheet is already filed. Hence, the appellant is not

required to be detained in custody, which would amount to

pre-trial punishment. Further, it is submitted that as the

appellant is aged 21 years, he will come in contact with

hardcore criminals, if he is continued in judicial custody.

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.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposing the appeal submitted that serious

allegations are made against the appellant for having

committed the offences. The appellant had married the

victim girl who is still minor. Under the guise of loving the

victim girl, the appellant has committed sexual assault

repeatedly on her, who is aged 16 years, even as per the

medical and school records. However, at present the victim

is in the custody of her parents. After investigation, the

charge sheet is filed with all necessary documents. Looking

to the seriousness of the offences, the appellant is not

entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of

the appeal.

5. 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 in Crime
            No.88/2021?"

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

the following:

REASONS

6. Serious allegations are made against the

appellant for having committed the offences. As per

medical records, the age of the victim is aged 16 years.

However, it is alleged that her marriage was performed by

the informant with CW.20. The informant has given her

statement before the learned Magistrate which was

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which is produced

before the Court for perusal. The victim has not supported

the case of the prosecution, that accused has forcibly

kidnapped her and committed sexual assault. On the other

hand, the allegation is made against her family members

for having performed her marriage with one Mahesh, who

is cited as CW.20. Admittedly, investigation is completed

and charge sheet is filed. It is not the contention of the

prosecution that appellant is required for further

investigation. The appellant is aged about 21 years. Under

such circumstances, his detention in custody would

amount to pre-trial punishment. 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.

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

Crime No.88/2021 of Gurumitkal 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

SMJ/VNR