Karnataka High Court
Ajeer vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 7 February, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
CRL.A No.200029 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200029 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
AJEER S/O RABBANI SHAIK,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O CHITKOTA, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SHILPA R
TENIHALLI THROUGH POLICE,
Location: HIGH BASAVAKALAYAN TOWN POLICE STATION,
COURT OF DIST. BIDAR-585401, REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA
ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. SMT. ARCHANA W/O SHALIVAN NATIKAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O LADWANTI VILLAGE, TQ. BASAVAKALAYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
CRL.A No.200029 of 2024
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A) OF PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES OF SC/ST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL.
MISC.NO.5287/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN
AND THEREBY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.5048/2023 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN
CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.
363, 366, 376(2) (N) OF IPC, 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, R/W
SEC. 3(1)(W) 3(2) (V), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT,
2015 REGISTERED ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.148/2023
REGISTERED BY BASAVAKALYAN TOWN POLICE STATION,
DIST. BIDAR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 14(A) of the
Prevention of Atrocities of SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015
challenging the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.5287/2023 by the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Basavakalyan,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
whereby he has rejected the bail petition filed by the
appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Special Case
No.5048/2023, pending on the file of II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Bidar sitting at Basavakalyan.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the
daughter of the complainant used to go to Neelambika
College, Basavakalyan from her village by bus and on
02.08.2023, the victim went to her college at 6-00 a.m.,
but did not return till 04-00 p.m. The parents enquired
everywhere and they could not find and thereafter, they
lodged a complaint. During the course of investigation, it
is found that the accused and victim girl were in love with
each other and they belonging to different caste. They ran
away to Pune in Maharashtra, wherein they stayed from
02.08.2023 to 10.08.2023 for about 8 days and thereafter
went to Hyderabad and secured a rented house of one
Ramesh at Nimbulli Adda. There the appellant said to
have committed sexual assault on the victim girl who was
minor. In this regard, this crime came to be registered for
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366,
376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act
and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act.
3. The appellant was arrested and was remanded
to the custody. Meanwhile, the investigating officer
completed the investigation and submitted the charge-
sheet.
4. The appellant filed bail petition before the
Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5287/2022
and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned order dated
20.12.2023 rejected the petition. Hence, the appellant er
is before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1/State. The respondent No.2 is served and
unrepresented.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that though the victim was found missing on
02.08.2023, a complaint was filed on 20.08.2023 and
there is delay in lodging the complaint. It is alleged that
the victim was traced on 08.10.2023 who was alleged to
be found in the custody of the accused/appellant and her
164 of Cr.P.C. statement discloses that she went along
with the accused/appellant herein voluntarily. Hence, it is
asserted that no criminal intention can be attributed and
since the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is
laid down, the presence of the accused/appellant is no
more required and sought for admitting the appellant on
bail.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1/State would contend that
admittedly, the victim is a minor and the appellant enticed
her under the guise of marriage and committed sexual
assault on her. He would also contend that though the
victim was minor, the question of her consent does not
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
arise at all and the medical records disclose that her
hymen was ruptured and she suffered sexual assault. He
would contend that the appellant has used the innocence
of the victim in committing the offences and hence,
considering the gravity of the offences, he cannot be
enlarged on bail as the victim herself belongs to a reserve
category and that has been exploited. As such, he has
sought for rejection of the bail.
8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that the victim is belonging to SC
community. Admittedly, the appellant/accused belonging
to non-Hindu community. Further, it is not in serious
dispute that the victim is aged less than 17 years. No
doubt the victim has expressed her willingness to marry
him, but she has not attained the age of marriage. Her
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the medical
evidence disclose that she had sexual intercourse with the
accused which is also not in serious dispute. The victim
was found in the custody of the accused in Hyderabad and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1368
that clearly discloses that the appellant has enticed the
minor and committed sexual assault. Her consent becomes
irrelevant at this juncture considering her minority and
that too when she is belonging to SC community being
suppressed community. The interest of the community
cannot be overlooked and it cannot be allowed to be
exploited in this way. There is prima facie material
evidence as regards the present appellant and considering
these facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case at this
stage to exercise the discretion of admitting the appellant
on bail. Considering these facts and circumstances, the
appeal being devoid of merits, does not survive for
consideration and needs to be rejected. Accordingly, the
appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
