In a criminal appeal for bail, the High Court dismissed the prayer, holding that the case was not fit for bail due to the strong prima facie case, vulnerability of the child victim from a Scheduled Caste family, and fear of intimidation, distinguishing cited precedents.
Bail prayer dismissed; appeal against rejection of bail in trial court dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1406 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MADHU S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT DODDAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 110 (NOW AT J.C) (BY SRI. NAGABHUSHANA REDDY K, ADVOCATE)
… APPELLANT
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
2
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.1297/2022 AND RELEASE THE ABOVE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.91/2022 OF VISHWANATHAPURA P.S. FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354(B), 376(3), 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 4(2), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
In this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, appellant who is accused is seeking bail in Cr.No.91/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C, Section 4(2), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, by setting aside the order dated 01.08.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.1297/2022 by the Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru Rural District.
3
through High Court Government Pleader.
5.1 He is innocent of the offences alleged. There is
inordinate delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint. The contents of the complaint indicate that it is drafted at the instance of persons who are inimical towards accused and his family members. The complaint as well as statement of the prosecutrix indicate that she is consenting party and there was no force by accused. The provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C, Section 4(2), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST
4
Act are not attracted. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Learned counsel for accused submitted that the case of the prosecution consists of full of contradictions. There are no other criminal cases pending against the accused and prays to allow the appeal and release him of bail.
for appellant has relied upon the following decisions:
(ii) 2015 Supreme (P 7 H) 1104 (iii) 2014 Supreme (Ker) 8
(iv) Crl.P.No.4306/2018 (v) AIR 1984 (SC) 372
Government Pleader resisted the appeal and submitted that when the complaint was filed the prosecutrix was aged 16 years. The complaint averments reveal that since about one year prior to the date of complaint i.e., when the prosecutrix was aged 15 years, accused started sexually assaulting her and on the date of incident i.e., on 26.06.2022 at 11.30 p.m. on hearing the cries of
5
prosecutrix, when her parents i.e., complainant and his wife rushed to the spot consisting of a trench (ºÀ¼Àî) surround by bushes which is at a distance of about 10 feet from their house, they found accused sexually assaulting the prosecutrix and when they intervened, accused abused them in filthy language referring to their caste and saying that being a person belonging to higher caste he is entitled to enjoy the girls and women of lower caste and he also attempted to disrobe the mother of the prosecutrix by pulling her saree and assaulted her. He also gave threat of killing the prosecutrix and splashing acid on her. The complaint further reveal that from the prosecutrix the complainant and his wife came to know that she was being sexually assaulted about 5-6 times by the accused since one year under a promise to marry her. After the incident, complainant approached the brother of the accused and informed him about the incident. Since there was threat by the accused, he did not choose to file complaint immediately and hence the delay in filing the complaint.
6
7
not enure the benefit of the accused. Being a child, her consent is immaterial. Admittedly, the prosecutrix and her parents belong to Adi Dravida Community which comes under Scheduled Caste and as such the provisions of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are also attracted. The medical report also indicate that prosecutrix was sexually assaulted.
bail, the possibility of prosecutrix and her family members not in a position to give evidence without being intimidated also cannot be ruled out. Charge sheet makes out a strong prima facie case against the accused. At the stage of considering the bail, the Court cannot
8
indulge in appreciation of the contents of the charge sheet as in case of appreciation of evidence after trial.
this is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused and accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
RR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious offences under POCSO and SC/ST Acts given the vulnerability of the child victim and economic disparity.
Whether the consent of the prosecutrix can be considered given her age at the time of the incident.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MADHU
STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHELUVAPPA
J.M.KHAZI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
