Karnataka High Court
Krishnakumar @ Krishne Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2023
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20927
CRL.A No. 1431/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1431/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNAKUMAR @ KRISHNE GOWDA
S/O T.V. NANJE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT DADI MNE ROAD
THAMLAPURA, HASSAN TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 187 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANESH G G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally BENGALURU - 560 001
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA
Location: High 2. ANJALI .N
Court of D/O NARAYANA
Karnataka
R/AT 6TH AND 5TH CROSS
VINAYAKA LAYOUT
NAYANDANHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 039 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR H S, HCGP FOR R1
SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE) PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES ACT 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20927
CRL.A No. 1431/2022
AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN
CRL.MISC.NO.6254/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN SPL.C.NO.1722/2021 FIR REGISTERED
BY THE GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, IN CR.NO.97/2021 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging the rejection of his application for grant of
bail, the accused in Spl. Case No.1722/2021 on the file of LXX
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has preferred
this appeal.
2. The appellant is being prosecuted in the aforesaid
case for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 504,
506, 201, 120B read with Section 34 IPC and sections
3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the first
respondent Police in Crime No.97/2021 of their Police Station.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
Respondent No.2 the victim belongs to scheduled caste.
The appellant along with accused Nos.2 to 4 conspired to
commit the sexual assault on respondent No.2. In execution of
NC: 2023:KHC:20927
CRL.A No. 1431/2022
such conspiracy he befriended her on facebook. Further on
25.03.2020 accused No.2 took her to the room of the appellant
and went outside in the guise of getting food. Accused Nos.1
and 3 offered her cool drinks laced with some stupefying
substance. On consuming the same when respondent No.2
was in deleterious condition, the appellant committed rape on
her and accused No.3 videographed the same. Then the
accused blackmailed respondent No.2 of making the said video
viral and extorted cash of Rs.4,00,000/- and 15 grams of gold.
When she filed complaint before the Police, accused threatened
to commit her murder.
4. Earlier bail petition of the appellant was rejected by
the trial Court. The said order was confirmed by this Court in
Crl.A.No.101/2022 considering the merits of the case. The
appellant again filed another petition before the trial Court in
Crl.Misc.No.6254/2022. By the impugned order, the trial Court
has rejected the same on merits.
5. Though learned counsel for the appellant argued at
length about the merits of the case since the earlier bail
petition was rejected on merits and that was upheld by this
NC: 2023:KHC:20927
CRL.A No. 1431/2022
Court, there is no scope for reconsideration of the merits of the
case. The case has to be considered only on the changed
circumstance, if any.
6. The only changed circumstance learned counsel for
the appellant urges is that though the appellant is in judicial
custody since last 2 years, not even the charge is framed in the
case. The records show that the charge sheet was filed when
the second wave of COVID-19 was going on. Admittedly, when
the matter was listed for framing of the charges, the appellant
filed application for discharge. Considerable time of the trial
Court was occupied in hearing and disposing of the interim
applications filed by the appellant.
7. The offences alleged against the appellant are
heinous one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar
Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another1 has held
that in the heinous offences like murder and rape, the mere
fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year is
not a relevant consideration in considering the application for
bail.
(2018)12 SCC 129
NC: 2023:KHC:20927
CRL.A No. 1431/2022
8. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find it appropriate to exercise the discretion to grant bail to
the appellant at this stage. The trial Court can be requested to
expedite the trial and conclude the same in a time bound
manner and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible at
any rate within six months from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Special Court is presently vacant. Registrar
(General) is requested to verify and do the needful.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKC
