Dismissed

Raghavendra @ Kumara @ Kothambarikumara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.A/1435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail application in a case involving rape, kidnapping, and SC/ST offenses, holding that detention exceeding one year cannot be the sole consideration given the heinous nature of the crime.

What did the court decide?

Bail application was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

Raghavendra @ Kumara @ Kothambarikumara Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.A.No.1435/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1435/2021

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

RAGHAVENDRA @ KUMARA @ KOTHAMBARIKUMARA S/O LATE GANGADHAR @ GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.94, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE RAJAGOPALNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 058 … APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJU T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE AT HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶12

POORNIMA N.L. W/O LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO-RENT HOUSE OF VENKATESHAPPA DOMBARAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK NAGALURU - 562 162

¶13

Crl.A.No.1435/2021

¶14

¶15

PERMANENT AT JAYAPURA CROSS TUMKUR TOWN & DISTRICT PIN - 572 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.911/2021 BY HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.535/2017 OF MADANAYAKANHALLI POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504, 506, 376(d) 363 R/W SECTION 35 OF ICP AND SECTION 3(2)(5) OF SC/ST ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.80/2018.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for grant of bail, accused No.3 in Spl.C.C.No.80/2018 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru has preferred the above appeal.

¶22

The appellant, along with three others, is facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.80/2018 for the charges for

¶23

Crl.A.No.1435/2021

¶24

¶25

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376(D), 363 R/W 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 on the basis of the complaint of P.W.1.

¶26

Case of the prosecution in brief is as

¶27

follows:

¶28

On 16.11.2017 at 7.00 p.m., the accused with a common intention trespassed into the house of P.W.1 when herself and her husband P.W.2 were at home. Then they assaulted P.W.2 and threatening both of them of their lives, accused Nos.1 to 4 committed gang rape on her and then they kidnapped P.W.2.

¶29

The appellant filed Crl.P.No.5744/2018 before this Court seeking bail. The same came to be dismissed on 26.03.2019 on merits.

¶30

The appellant is seeking bail on the following alleged changed circumstances:

¶31

(i) The appellant is in judicial custody since last three and a half years and trial is not concluded.

¶32

Crl.A.No.1435/2021

¶33

¶34

(ii) P.W.2, husband of the victim has turned hostile.

¶35

(iii) Evidence of P.W.1 is not credible.

¶36

So far as delay in trial, this Court in Crl.P.No.5744/2018 dated 26.03.2019 directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter within six months. However, thereafter, proceedings of all the Courts are hampered due to Covid-19 pandemic. Even then as submitted, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined.

¶37

Even if P.W.2 has turned hostile, what has to be seen is the evidence of victim/P.W.1 and whether that is corroborated by the other independent witnesses. This Court has already observed that the medical evidence is highly incriminating.

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader made available for the perusal of this Court the medical examination report, which shows that there were several injuries on the private parts of the victim and she was very much exhausted when she was examined.

¶39

Crl.A.No.1435/2021

¶40

¶41

If P.W.2 lacked loyalty to P.W.1, it cannot

¶42

become a ground to grant bail to the appellant. The material on record at this stage prima facie shows the barbaric crime shocking the conscience of the society is committed against the victim.

¶43

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and

¶44

Another¹ has held that in the matters involving heinous crime, the detention of the accused for more than one year itself cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail. Considering all such aspects, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. This Court does not find any illegality in the said order. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed .

Sd/JUDGE

pgg

1 (2018) 12 SCC 129

Raghavendra @ Kumara @ Kothambarikumara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra @ Kumara @ Kothambarikumara 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 Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K S Naveena Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sumitra L Vs Smt C Manjula

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T N Thimmarajachar Vs Sri K R Sathyanarayana

Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka