Allowed

Kumar.Bhimappa Hullikeri, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2020CRL.P/102465/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petitioner's bail in a case involving rape and SC/ST atrocities. The Court balanced the gravity of charges against the lack of evidence in the medical report regarding recent intercourse.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail in connection with SC/ST No.11/2019 subject to personal bond with sureties and standard bail conditions.

Kumar.Bhimappa Hullikeri, Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102465 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KUMAR BHIMAPPA HULLIKERI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GULAGANDI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RON POLICE REPTD. BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶12

FAKKIRAVVA W/O. VENKAPPA MADAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GULAGANDI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C./S.T.NO.11/2019 (CRIME NO.123/2019 OF RON POLICE STATION) PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 376, 504, 506

¶16

¶17

OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in SC/ST No.11/2019 (Crime No.123/2019 of Ron Police Station) pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, the ‘Act’).

¶21

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that, on the complaint filed by the prosecutrix victim, the police have registered a case. The allegations are that on 30.07.2019,

¶22

¶23

the complainant had gone to the land of the petitioner for collecting grass; the petitioner who was present in the said land caught hold of her and tried to drag her inside the land. When the complainant protested, the petitioner forcibly had intercourse by saying that he has given Rs.700/loan. When the husband of the prosecutrix came there, the petitioner fled away from the spot by threatening her.

¶24

On registering the case, the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The accused is in custody since from the date of arrest. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court was rejected.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the records.

¶26

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

would contend that on account of strained relationship because of the loan transaction between the accused and husband of the victim, a false case has been registered against the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, alleged incident of sexual harassment/rape is said to have been taken place in the land belonging to the accused-petitioner when the victim had gone to the said land for collecting the grass. Thus, it indicates that the petitioner had not gone in search of the victim to commit the offence and there is no convincing evidence to show that the accused-petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim. The medical report confirms that there were no signs of recent sexual act. Admittedly, the victim was examined on the next day of the incident. If at all the accused-petitioner had performed any forcible

¶29

¶30

intercourse there would have been signs of forcible sexual acts. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Thus, the presence of the accused-petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody since 31.07.2019. Due to the detention, the petitioner is put to great hardship.

¶31

Per contra , the learned HCGP

¶32

submitted that on the information given by the prosecutrix, the police have registered the case. There are no grounds to hold that the petitioneraccused has been falsely implicated in this case. In the event of granting bail, the accused flee away from justice and tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

Having regard to the submission made

¶34

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶35

¶36

learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. As could be seen from the complaint averments, when the victim had gone to the land belonging to the accused, the alleged incident of rape has been committed by him. The statement of some witnesses disclose that there was a loan transaction between the accused and the husband of prosecutrix victim. There was a quarrel between them, when the accused had demanded the repayment of the hand loan given by him. According to the medical reports, there are no signs of recent sexual intercourse. The statement of witnesses and the medical records do not make out a prima facie case. Thus, all these relevant matters have to be considered and decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be placed on record. At this stage, having perused the material available on record, this Court finds no reason to keep the

¶37

¶38

petitioner-accused behind the bars as he has already suffered for more than ten months in jail.

¶39

It is well settled that till the time the guilt of a person is not proved in accordance with law, but he is deemed to be innocent. Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed, no material is forthcoming to infer that in the event of enlarging the petitioner on bail, he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses or cause threat to the prosecutrix victim. Hence, there is no justification to keep the petitioner behind bars for indefinite period especially when the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶40

It is well settled principle that the

¶41

gravity of the offences alleged alone cannot be a ground to reject the bail. In a decision reported

¶42

¶43

in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 883, the Hon’ble

¶44

Apex Court has observed as under:

¶45

“The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences are – the nature and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶46

Having considered the facts and

¶47

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail to the accused-petitioner, subject to certain

¶48

¶49

terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Ron P.S. Crime No.123/2019 (SC/ST No.11/2019),

¶52

pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag subject to following conditions.

¶53

The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶54

The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

If the accused/petitioner violates any of the

¶59

conditions, the bail order shall stand vacated automatically.

¶60

CLK

Kumar.Bhimappa Hullikeri, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar.Bhimappa Hullikeri, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Basappa Sakarappa Hosalli Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Shivaraj Tammannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Basavanagouda S/O Revanasiddappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Bhanda @ Dadasaheb S/O Sarjerao Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok S/O Veerabadrappa Burji Vs the State of Karnataka

Gundam Satish S/O Raja Shekar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka