Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Budeppa Madival vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Rai K
-1-
CRL.A No. 200126 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200126 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O BUDEPPA MADIVAL,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SANNA SAMBRA,
TQ: GURUMITKAL, DIST: YADGIR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B M. KINIKERI ,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAIDAPUR P.S
TQ: GURUMITAKAL, DIST: YADGIR,
Digitally
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP,
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
SACHIN KALABURAGI BENCH.
Location:
High Court 2. YALLAMMA W/O SANNA BABU,
of AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Karnataka
R/O: SANNA SAMBRA VILLAGE,
TQ: GURMITAKAL, DIST: YADGIR-585214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP R1,
SRI SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE R2)
-2-
CRL.A No. 200126 of 2023
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A (2) OF SC/ST (PA)
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13-04-2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR IN
CRIMINAL MISC NO 155/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT No.1 POLICE TO RELEASE THE
APPELLANT/A-3 (AS PER FIR) ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH IN CRIME NO 26/2023 OF
SAIDAPUR POLICE STATION, DIST YADGIR REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 504, 506, 376 (2) (N)
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE & U/S 6 OF THE POCSO ACT AND U/S
3 (1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST PA ACT 1989, NOW PENDING
ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated
13.04.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No.155/2023 by the District and
Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, wherein the bail application filed by
the appellant under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by the
same, the appellant is before this court seeking for grant for
anticipatory bail.
2. The appellant is accused No.3 in Crime No.26/2023
of Saidapur Police Station, Yadgir District and charged for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and
376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act
CRL.A No. 200126 of 2023
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA)
Act, 1989.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the
accused No.1-Ravi S/o Nagappa was sexually harassing the
victim girl, as and when she was proceeding and returning from
the school. This being so, since two years, by blackmailing her
that he had her naked photos and thereby repeatedly
committed sexual assault on her. In addition to that, accused
No.1 had abused in filthy language and when her mother
intervened, the said accused also assaulted her and the
accused No.2 and 3 i.e., the appellant and another have also
stated to have abused the victim girl in filthy language by
taking caste of the victim girl and her mother. Hence, victim
girl lodged the complaint before the respondent police on
10.03.2023. for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the
same, the appellant approached the learned Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri in Crl.Miisc.no.155/2023 for grant of anticipatory bail
and however the said petition was dismissed by the learned
Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.04.2023. Hence, he
preferred this bail petition for grant of anticipatory bail.
CRL.A No. 200126 of 2023
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-
State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
though the appellant arraigned as accused No.3 in the FIR on
perusal of the FIR it could be seen that there is no overt-acts
attributed against this appellant, since this appellant has
neither assaulted nor abused the victim girl. He also not
facilitated the accused No.1 to commit the offence. Hence, he
prays to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently contended
that this appellant is involved in the commission of crime along
with other accused. This appellant also abused the victim and
her mother by touching their caste. He further contend that
since there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act,
1989, the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
As such he prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard both the parties and on meticulous
perusal of records, it could be seen in the complaint there is no
CRL.A No. 200126 of 2023
specific accusation made against this appellant except some
omnibus allegations in respect of abusing the victim by taking
her caste. So far as offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the same attracts
against accused No.1. Even in 164 statement of the victim girl
also she has not made allegation against the appellant in
respect of the alleged sexual harassment.
8. Further by perusal of the records, there is no
specific allegation against this appellant in respect of
commission of the offence under the provisions of SC/ST(POA)
Act, that he had abused the complainant by touching her caste.
Moreover, as per the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Prathviraj Chouhan vs. Union of India reported
in 2020 SCC 159, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that if the complaint does not disclose any prima facie case,
then bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act will not come
in the way to enlarge the accused on anticipatory bail. Hence,
in that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that,
the appellant may be admitted on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant-accused No.3 is
directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his
CRL.A No. 200126 of 2023
arrest in Crime No.26/2023 by the respondent police, subject
to the following conditions:
i. Appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum
of `50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii. He shall surrender himself before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii. He shall appear before the trial Court and seek
for regular bail within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when required.
v. He shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
