Allowed

Sachin Thelakar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022CRL.A/1317/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application. Finding that allegations of caste insult appeared in a subsequent complaint but not the initial one, the Court held there was no prima facie case. It set aside the lower order and granted bail with sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail admitted on bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and conditions not to tamper with evidence, appear regularly, mark attendance, and avoid new FIRs.

Sachin Thelakar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sachin Thelakar S/o Keerthy Raj Aged about 28 years R/o Subash Nagar Koppa Town Chikkamagalore-577 126.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Pavan Kumar G., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka

¶12

By Rajagopala Nagar P.S. Rep by SPP High Court Building Bangalore-560 001.

¶13

Sushmitha

¶14

d/o Sri Shanthappa Aged about 22 years R/o Siddalingaiah House 4^th Block, Sanjeevini Nagara Hegganahalli Cross Bangalore-560092.

¶15

…Respondents (By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP for R1; R2- Served)

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order dated 30.06.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. No.6019/2022 on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) and etc,.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri. Pavan Kumar G., learned counsel for the appellant and the High Court Government Pleader. It is submitted by the High Court Government Pleader that respondent no.2 has been served with notice of this appeal and in this regard he files a memo. There is no representation on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶21

This appeal is filed under section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short] challenging the order dated 30.06.2022

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

passed by the Special Judge, (CCH-71), Bengaluru rejecting the appellant’s application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in connection with Cr.No.91/2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 376, 420, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶24

FIR came to be registered on 22.3.2022 at

¶25

the instance of second respondent on the allegations that when she was a student of MBA at Bangalore University, she came in contact with the appellant and they became close to each other. The appellant wanted to marry her. Second respondent told that she would belong to scheduled caste, yet the appellant assured that he would convince his elders for the marriage. Thus the second respondent believed him. She alleged that the appellant had sexual contact with her promising to marry and then when his parents came to know about the relationship, they took

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

objection and made it clear that marriage was impossible. Specific allegation is that on 3.12.2021, she came from Shivamogga and went to the house of the appellant at 3.00 a.m. At that time, the appellant did not open the door and threatened to kill her besides insulting her taking the name of her caste.

¶28

The investigation is now complete and charge sheet has been filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument that the complaint was false one, refers to the initial complaint dated 4.12.2021 and argues that in the said complaint nothing is mentioned about second respondent being subjected to insultation in the name of caste.

¶30

It is to be noted here that the police did not register FIR and instead issued NCR. But on

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

23.3.2022, she made one more complaint to the

¶33

police which came to be registered in Cr.No.91/2022. If both the complaints are

¶34

compared, at this stage, it becomes very clear that second respondent has made allegations that she was insulted and abused in the name of caste, which allegations do not find a place in the complaint dated 4.12.2021. If the police did not take action pursuant to the initial complaint, then the allegations in the second complaint about abusing the second respondent sexually with a promise to marry is difficult to be believed. Anyway, it is a matter of trial. In this view I do not find a prima facie case. The trial court could have granted bail in these set of circumstances. The appellant is in custody since 26.3.2022. Therefore appeal is allowed.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

:: 6 ::

The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl. Misc.No.6019/2022 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

¶39

The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶40

The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶41

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses.

¶42

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

¶43

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once

¶44

:: 7 ::

¶45

in 15 days, preferably on a Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

¶46

iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sachin Thelakar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Thelakar 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

Dr T Venkatesh Vs State by Lokayukta Police

Sri. Anand C @ Anku Gowda Vs Smt. Chandramma

Ashoka R Urs Vs the State

Mr Veeresh Kandankovi Belludi Vs M/S Logipro Software Pvt. Ltd.

Dileep Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gopinath Shetty Vs Sri Ramesh Khub Chandani