Allowed

Sri. Devappa v. the State of Karnataka through

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2019CRL.P/200571/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner facing charges of rape, cheating, and intimidation. The court considered the prosecution records and held that valid grounds existed for granting bail, subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties and compliance with strict conditions regarding witness tampering and appearance.

Sri. Devappa Vs the State of Karnataka through — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200571/2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. Devappa S/o Krishnappa Bavur, Aged about: 29 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rajanal Village, Tq: B. Bagewadi, Dist: Vijayapura-586 204.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Through Nidagundi Police Station, Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura. Rept. By it’s Addl. SPP, High Court Bench, Kalaburagi-585102.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and order for release of the petitioner on bail in Crime No.38/2019, at Basavan Bagewadi of Nidagundi Police Station, Vijayapura for the alleged offences punishable under section 376, 420, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, in the interest of justice.

¶16

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking bail in Crime No.38/2019 of Basavan Bagewadi of Nidagundi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Vijayapura..

¶20

On the complaint filed by victim Huligemma D/o Siriyappa Madar that she came in conduct with the accused about 7-8 years prior to the date of complaint, when she had gone to Araladinni village for coolie work. Thereafter, the accused started visiting the house of the complainant to the past 5-6 years and started having sexual intercourse by promising her, he would marry her. On account of the physical contacts, the complainant has become pregnant, when the victim asked the accused to get the mother’s card, the accused managed to get the card by showing the victim’s father has her husband.

¶21

¶22

When the parents of the complainant approached the accused to marry the complainant, the accused refused and also threatened to take away her life. On registering the case, the police have taken up the investigation and charge sheet has not yet filed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the complainant victim was the divorced, as such there are no chance likelihood of the accused promising the complainant victim to marry her and to have intercourse on the promise of marriage. The victim was having this illicit relationship for the past 5-6 years and there was a clear consent by the complainant victim. As such ingredients of Section 376 are not at all attracted. Due to detention, the petitioner is put to hardship.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the averments made in the complaint clearly goes to show that the accused

¶25

¶26

had the illicit relationship with the complainant on the promise that he would marry her and thereafter he has failed to marry as per the promise made by him. Therefore, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. In the event of granting bail, the accused likely to commit the similar offences and tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶27

During the course of argument, the learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the medical report, the contents of the said report namely past history of the victim reveals that the victim had earlier married Mahantesh when she was 20 years and she was divorced about 7 years back. Thereafter, she fell

¶28

in love with Devappa Krishnappa Bavur i.e. the present petitioner and used to have frequent sexual contacts every week or 15 days as such she became pregnant. Four times she got aborted by taking tablets. The

¶29

¶30

present one is fifth pregnancy and as such she come to the hospital.

¶31

In the present case, prosecutrix is aged about 20 years, the prosecution records disclose that she has given consent to sexual intercourse to the accused with whom she was in love and on her promise that he would marry her on later date. The prosecutrix being a divorced lady continued to meet the accused and often had sexual intercourse and became pregnant. The complaint lodged on failure of the accused to marry her cannot be termed as consent said to have been given under the misconception of the fact. At this stage, it is needless to make detail discussion about the prosecution records, while considering the bail application as the same is not permissible or justified.

¶32

7. The main objection of the prosecution is that

¶33

in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The said

¶34

¶35

objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶36

Considering facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that there are valid grounds for granting bail. As such the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following…

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/ Committal Court.

¶39

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶40

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court/Sessions Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

¶41

¶42

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶43

v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance in respondent – Basavan Bagewadi of Nidagundi Police Station, Vijayapura on every alternative days till submission of the final report.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SMP

Sri. Devappa v. the State of Karnataka through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Devappa v. the State of Karnataka through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basawaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Md.Umar Farooq S/O Md.Ahmed Iqbal Vs the State

Md. Raise Vs the State through Bidar Town

Ananthrao and Anr. Vs the State and Anr.

Dundappa and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka through and Anr.

Mr.Suresh S/O Basavaraj Yakanchi Vs the State of Karnataka