Karnataka High Court
Vinay vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 8 August, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
CRL.A No. 200206 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200206 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
SRI. VINAY S/O VEERESH,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O JALALNAGAR MAKTHAL PETH, RAICHUR
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE SHO, RAICHUR
WEST POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed REP. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: High KALABURAGI BENCH-585102.
Court Of
Karnataka
2. SRI. VEERESH S/O BHEEMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O H.NO.12/1-360/508, JALALNAGAR
MAKTHAL PETH, RAICHUR.
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VEERESH, FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
CRL.A No. 200206 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14
(2) OF SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18-07-2024, IN CRL.
MISC NO.355/2024 (ARISING OUT OF SPL. (A) FIR
NO.37/2024) PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CASE
UNDER THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT AND I ADDITIONAL DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT / SOLE ACCUSED
ON BAIL IN SPL. (A) FIR NO.37/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.59/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SPL. COURT
FOR CASES UNDER THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT AND I ADDL.
DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR FOR THE COMMISSION
OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (5a) OF SC / ST (POA)
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, 2014, REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT-RAICHUR WEST P.S.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
CRL.A No. 200206 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)
This appeal is filed under Section 14 (A) (2) of the
Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST POA Act'), for
setting aside the order of rejection of bail by the Special
Court for cases under the SC and ST (POA) and I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, in
Crl.Misc.No.355/2024 dated 18.07.2024 for having
rejecting the regular bail.
02. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent No.1 - State. The respondent No.2 has
appeared party-in-person and filed the statement of
objection.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
03. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2 filed on 23.06.2024, the
police have registered the FIR for the offences punishable
under Sections 306 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3
(2) (5a) of the SC/ST POA Act. It is alleged that on
20.06.2024 the deceased and the accused said to be
approached the police station stating that they are in love
affair. The parents are opposing the same. Hence, they
requested the police to help them. The intimation was
given to the complainant and also relatives of the accused.
Accordingly, the complainant approached the police station
along with the known persons and elders of the village. In
the police station, the accused and the deceased were said
to be told that they are majors and they are willing to
marry each other. Subsequently, the complainant came
back. Later he came to know that his daughter i.e.,
deceased - Anuradha was left in the women protection
home by the police. On the very next day, the complainant
said to be met with his daughter in the protectin home,
where she said to be told that she is ready to come back
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
to the home. The accused has also approached her and
informed that he is belongs to different caste and he is not
ready to marry her. Subsequently, on the same day, the
deceased said to be attempting to commit the suicide by
jumping from the first floor of the building and sustained
injuries. She was taken to the hospital and she was died in
the hospital on 23.06.2024 at 06.15 am.
04. Accordingly, the complaint came to be filed. The
police have registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner
on 23.06.2024 and he was remanded to the judicial
custody. His bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the
appellant is before this Court.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
seriously contended that the appellant is innocent of the
alleged offences. The appellant and the deceased were
fallen in love. They are ready to marry each, but the
respondent No.2 and his relatives were objected the
marriage, they are not ready to accept the marriage.
Therefore, they had approached to the police station for
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
help. The police have send the victim to the protection
home and the accused never meet the deceased, but the
deceased said to be committed suicide, as her marriage
was opposed by the parents. Absolutely, there is no
abatement for committing the suicide. There was no
statement of the victim recorded by the police. The
complaint was given only after the death of the deceased.
At this stage it is no possible to show that the appellant
had committed the offence. Hence, prayed for allowing the
appeal.
06. The respondent No.2 has appeared in person
and filed the statement of objections stating that the
accused refused to marry his daughter, he met the
deceased in the swagraha without the knowledge. He has
informed the deceased that the accused is not ready to
marry her and the accused have some photographs and
videographs and it will be web hosted in the social media
and threatened. Therefore, his daughter committed suicide
because of abatement made by the accused. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
07. The learned High Court Government Pleader
has also objected the appeal contending that as per the
statement of the Nirmala, who is a guard of the protection
home, where the accused telephoned to the deceased
through Nirmala at 12.30 p.m. He asked to hand-over the
phone to the deceased. He had talked to the deceased, at
that time. Subsequently, the accused came personally and
met the deceased. He was reluctant to marry and refused
to marry her on the ground of different caste and her
family members have not ready to agree for the marriage.
The investigation is still under progress. At this stage, if
the bail is granted, he may tamper with the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the appeal.
08. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of
the records, which reveal that of course the deceased and
the accused are fall in love. They had approached the
police for help. Subsequently, the intimation was given to
both the parents and the respondent No.2 along with
others and there was discussion made in the police
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
station. According to the complainant that the uncle and
aunt of the accused refused the marriage on the ground of
different caste, as they are belongs to members of the
SC/ST. One Achamma was opposing the marriage. The
complainant was also told the police to take appropriate
decision in accordance with law and they came back.
09. Subsequently, without the knowledge of the
complainant, the police left the victim in the (swagraha)
protection home. He got the information and met in the
protection home. The deceased was agreed to come back
to his house. Subsequently, the accused met her and there
was something held between them. The accused said to be
refused to marry her and he said to be sexually abused
her. He said to be told her that he will web host in the
social media the photographs and videographs of the
deceased and the accused. It is also alleged that the
deceased was jumped from the building and attempt to
commit the suicide, because of refusal of marriage by the
accused, even though he has agreed give the marriage of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5811
his daughter with the accused. The investigation is under
progress and the postmortem report is not yet received,
whether the victim was given any statement before the
police are not forthcoming. The statement of Nirmala is
already given.
10. At this stage, I am of the view that the
investigation is under progress, until completion of the
investigation, it is not a fit case to grant the bail. If the
bail is granted, there is a every possibility of tampering
the witnesses by the accused is not ruled out. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
I. The appeal is dismissed.
II. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, the
pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.
Hence, they are also dismissed.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
KJJ
