Karnataka High Court
Mr. Balarama vs State Of Karnataka By on 20 June, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1810 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MR. BALARAMA
S/O THIPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O SUDDEKUNTE VILLAGE,
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI - 572 127,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KODIGENAHALLI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. SUMITHRA
W/O RAMANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O SUDDEKUNTE VILLAGE,
KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI - 572 127,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.69/2021 (SPL.C.C. NO.353/2021) REGISTERED BY
KODIGENAHALLI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 342, 376, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, SECTIONS 6,
17 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii),
3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by accused No.2 in Crime
No.69/2021 registered at Kodigenahalli Police Station,
Tumakuru to enlarge him on bail, by setting aside the
impugned order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru in Crl. Misc.
No.1210/2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
learned HCGP for respondent No.1/ State and perused the
material on record.
3. Respondent No.2/ defacto complainant has been
served, but there is no representation.
4. Chargesheet has been filed against accused Nos.1
to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 342, 376, 506 r/w
34 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the SC and
ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
5. The first informant is the mother of the minor
victim girl aged about 15 years. Case of the prosecution is
that on 12.08.2021 at about 1.30 p.m when the victim girl
was in the house along with her grand-mother, accused No.1
by falsely stating that she has to get photos for LIC policy,
took the victim to her house, wherein both accused Nos.2 and
3 tied her hands, closed her mouth with a plaster and
thereafter removed the cloths and committed penetrative
sexual assault. Further, they threatened her with dire
consequences if she disclosed the incident to others.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated. He submits that in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C, victim has not specifically stated that
the accused have committed penetrative sexual assault on
her. He contends that even if the entire allegations are
accepted then only Section 7 of POCSO Act would attract,
which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of three
years. He therefore submits that by imposing any conditions,
the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
7. Learned HCGP opposed the prayer seeking bail,
contending that in view of the statement of the victim there is
a prima facie case and in the event of grant of bail to the
appellant, he may terrorize the victim and tamper the
prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he has sought to dismiss
the appeal.
8. I have perused the complaint averments as well
as statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Victim has categorically stated about the heinous act
committed by the appellant/ accused No.2 along with other
accused persons. She has clearly stated that the accused tied
her hands and put plaster tape to her mouth and committed
sexual assault on her. At this stage, Court cannot come to the
conclusion that no offence as alleged by the prosecution has
taken place. The victim was subjected to medical examination
and the doctor has opined that she has been exposed to
sexual act. Admittedly, the trial is in progress. The learned
Sessions Judge has observed that the first informant ie.,
mother of the victim in her objection has stated that there is
a life threat from the accused and therefore opined that at
this stage, if he is released on bail then he may terrorize the
victim and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and also
abscond from the jurisdictional Court.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge
the appellant on bail. There is no illegality in the impugned
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Hence, the following,
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LL
