Karnataka High Court
Pramod @ Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
PRAMOD @ PRAMOD KUMAR
SON OF LATE MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O OF SURAGA, JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH M G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ANEKAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S
2. SMT. PALLAVI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/O BHODARAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE 2nd
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
-2-
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.2119/2022 DATED 01.12.2022 AND GRANT
REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.269/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.417,376 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v), 3(1)(w) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT 1989 REGISTERED BEFORE THE ANEKAL POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The sole accused has filed this appeal seeking setting
aside the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.
2119/2022 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,
whereunder the bail petition of the appellant - accused
sought in crime No. 269/2022 of Anekal Police station for
the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 of IPC and
Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w) of SC ST (Prevention of
Atrocities), Act, 1989, came to be rejected.
2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - State.
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained
absent and unrepresented.
3. Case of the prosecution is that since two months
the accused was plaguing the victim girl to marry him. She
was mesmerized by his words. On 26.10.2022 at about
08.30 a.m. the appellant having approached her enticed
her that they shall marry in Mahadeshwara temple in
Mahadeshwara hill and she should take gold ornaments
with her. Accordingly, the victim girl took Rs.30,000/-,
mangalya chain, ear studs, ring and proceeded with the
appellant. The appellant near Jigani APC circle pledged the
gold ornaments and took her to Mahadeshwara hill. He
rented a room and in the said room on the said night
against her will had sexual intercourse with her. On
27.10.2022 at 10.00 am stating that the victim belongs to
schedule caste and that it had come to the knowledge of
his family members and he would marry her after
convincing his family members, he dropped the victim girl
at Jigani APC circle. The victim after realizing that she has
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
been defrauded, lodged a complaint on 29.10.2022. Said
complaint came to be registered in crime No. 269/2022 for
the offence under Sections 376, 417 of IPC and Sections
3(2)(v), 3(1)(w) of the Act. The appellant came to be
arrested on 01.11.2022 and he is in judicial custody.
Charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant -
accused for the aforesaid offences along with offence
under Section 420 of IPC. Appellant - accused filed
Crl.Misc. No. 2119/2022 seeking bail and the same came
to be rejected by II Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru,
by order dated 01.12.2022. Said order is challenged in the
instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the victim girl was in love affair with this appellant -
accused and she voluntarily went along with him and had
sexual intercourse with him. The victim girl is aged 20
years and she is aware of the consequences of her acts.
The Doctor who examined the victim girl has noted no
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
injuries over her body and geneteria. On perusal of the
entire charge sheet material it is clear that the sexual
intercourse between the appellant - accused and the
victim girl is consensual and therefore, offence under
Section 376 of IPC is not attracted. He contends that as
charge sheet is filed the appellant - accused is not
required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all
these aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed
the impugned order which requires interference by this
Court. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant
bail to the appellant.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent No. 1 - State would contend that the appellant
- accused under false pretext of marrying the victim girl
pledged her golden ornaments, took room at
Mahaheshwara hill and had sexual intercourse with her
and thereafter refused to marry her. The victim girl in her
statement recorded by the Police and in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
stated the acts of the appellant - accused in cheating her.
The charge sheet material clearly attracts offence alleged
against the appellant - accused. Considering all these
aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly passed
the impugned order. With this he prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
- accused and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - State
this Court has gone through the impugned order and
charge sheet.
7. The age of the victim girl is 20 years. On perusal
of her complaint, statement recorded by the Police and the
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. it is clear
that she was in love affair with the appellant - accused.
The victim girl voluntarily went along with this appellant -
accused, stayed with him in a rented room at
Mahadeshwara hill where they had sexual intercourse.
Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contends that
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
the said sexual intercourse is consensual and therefore,
offence under Section 376 of IPC is not attracted. The
victim girl has filed complaint against appellant - accused
as he refused to marry her. The offence alleged against
the appellant - accused is not punishable with either death
or imprisonment for life. As charge sheet is filed, the
appellant - accused is not required for custodial
interrogation. Without considering all these aspects
learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the impugned
order which calls for interference by this Court.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case there
are grounds for setting aside the impugned order and
granting bail to the appellant - accused with terms and
conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
01.12.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 2119/2022 by II
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside.
CRL.A No. 94 of 2023
Consequently, the petition filed by the appellant - accused
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and he is ordered to
be released on bail in crime No. 269/2002 of Anekal Police
station subject to the following conditions:
i. The appellant - accused shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh
(Rupees One lakh only) with a surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
ii. The appellant - accused shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The appellant - accused shall attend the
Court on all the dates of hearing unless
exempted by the Court and cooperate for the
speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
