Dismissed

Pavan @ Pavankumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2022CRL.A/1213/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal regarding bail under the SC/ST POA Act and POCSO Act, the appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application alleging false charges. The court upheld the lower court's order, finding sufficient evidence of involvement despite the delay in reporting, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, maintaining the order of rejection of the bail application.

Pavan @ Pavankumar Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1213 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Pavan @ Pavankumar, S/o Devaraju, Aged about 22 years, Residing at Mayasandra Village, Kunnalamma Temple, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572125. …Appellant

¶8

(By Sri Harish Kumar M.R., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

State of Karnataka, By Kallambella Police Station, Tumakuru District-572125. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶11

Nagesha G., S/o. Govindappa, Aged about 43 years, Residing at Siradadu Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkuru District-572125.

¶12

…Respondents

¶13

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2 - served)

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order in Crl.Misc.No.404/2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1) at Tumakuru and enlarge the appellant on bail in Spl.C.C.No.118/2022 for the offence p/u/s 376 of IPC under section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and etc.

¶16

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This is an appeal under section 14 (A)(2) of

¶19

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant has challenged the order dated 6.4.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru, in Crl. Misc. 404/2022. In connection with Crime No. 18/2022 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under section 376 IPC, section 4 of the POCSO Act and section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant applied for bail and since the

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

application stood dismissed by the impugned

¶22

order, this appeal has been preferred.

¶23

Heard Sri Harish Kumar M.R, learned

¶24

counsel for the appellant and the Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but there is no representation on his behalf.

¶25

The allegation against the appellant is that on 20.1.2022 when the victim girl was returning to her village, she sat on the motor bike of the appellant as she wanted a drop to her village. On the way, at about 7.45 PM the appellant stopped the motor bike and committed rape on the girl in the nearby coconut garden.

¶26

The argument of the appellant’s counsel is

¶27

that though the incident is said to have taken place on 20.1.2022, the girl did not reveal the incident to anybody till 24.1.2022. The medical

¶28

:: 4 ::

¶29

report does not disclose presence of any resistance marks on the person of the victim girl, and therefore the entire incident is false. His submission was that the conduct of the girl is to be taken into consideration for enlarging the appellant on bail.

¶30

Government Pleader opposes the appeal by submitting that merely for the reason that the victim girl did not disclose the incident to anybody cannot be a reason for disbelieving the prosecution case. The medical report shows that the hymen was ruptured. The charge sheet also indicates involvement of the appellant. Moreover appellant is a total stranger to the girl and in this view the impugned order cannot be interfered with.

¶31

I have perused the charge sheet, other materials and the impugned order. The prosecution case clearly indicates that the appellant appears to have misused the opportunity

¶32

:: 5 ::

¶33

when the victim girl was found alone during night time. As rightly argued by the Government Pleader, appellant is a total stranger to the girl. The medical report shows that the hymen was open. The victim girl might not have disclosed the incident to her parents, but she revealed the same before her aunt. At this stage, there are materials indicating involvement of the appellant in the crime. I do not find there is a good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore appeal is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

ckl/-

Pavan @ Pavankumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan @ Pavankumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayaz @ Mohammed Siraj Vs State of Karnataka

Girishkumar @ Gir @ Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangadharaiah @ Gangaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

Lokesh M @ Loki Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Nagarajaiah, Vs the C B I

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka by