Allowed

Sri K S Naveena v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2022CRL.A/1627/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal for bail. The appellant, accused in a rape and culpable homicide attempt case also involving SC/ST Atrocities, sought bail claiming he was a student facing engineering examinations. The court set aside the trial court's rejection.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to appearance and non-tampering with witnesses.

Sri K S Naveena Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.1627/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1627/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.K.S.NAVEENA S/O SRI.K.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDING AT HANAGAVADI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 601 … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.VARUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE -VC) AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE HARIHARA RURAL POLICE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 601 REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR

¶12

SINDHU N.B. D/O SRI.BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS HANAGAWADI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE KARNATAKA– 577 601 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1- THROUGH PH; SRI.G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2- THROUGH VC)

¶14

CRL.A.No.1627/2021

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.MISC.NO.813/2021 AND ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL, ON SUCH CONDITIONS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN RESPECT OF CR.NO.154/2021 REGISTERED BY HARIHARA RURAL POLICE (RESPONDENT) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 376 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(1)(w),3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application accused No.1 in Crime No.154/2021 of Harihara Rural police station has preferred the above appeal.

¶20

The appellant is accused No.1 in Crime No.154/2021. His senior uncle and brother are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the said case. Crime No.154/2021 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417 & 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, on the basis of complaint of ‘X’ the victim. (For the

¶21

CRL.A.No.1627/2021

¶22

¶23

purpose of confidentiality the complainant is referred to henceforth as ‘X’)

¶24

The gist of the complaint is as follows:

¶25

That ‘X’ and the appellant were loving each other since one year. On 14.08.2021 the appellant forced her to marry him and blackmailed her saying that if she declines he commits suicide. Ultimately on 18.08.2021 he took her to Bengaluru. From 14.08.2021 after 18.08.2021, both of them stayed together in two different lodges. During the said stay, the appellant tied turmeric thread in her neck as a token of marriage and committed rape on her. On 23.08.2021 accused No.2 filed missing complaint about the appellant. Then police picked them up from lodge. Accused No.2 snatched turmeric thread from her neck saying that she belongs to the scheduled caste and she cannot marry the appellant. Then they forcibly took the appellant from the police station.

¶26

The trial Court rejected the application of the appellant for grant of bail. This Court has granted interim

¶27

CRL.A.No.1627/2021

¶28

¶29

bail to the appellant on the ground that the appellant is a student and he has to attend the examination. Now charge sheet is filed. The Investigating Officer has dropped accused Nos.2 and 3 from the charge sheet on the ground that no case is made out against accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

The complaint does not indicate that the alleged development of intimacy with ‘X’ and abuse was caste based or she was targeted due to her caste. ‘X’ only states that they were in a relationship for about one year. ‘X’ is aged about 19 years and the appellant is aged about

¶31

20 years.

¶32

Though ‘X’ and the appellant moved to

¶33

different places for about five days, there was nothing to indicate that she has raised any alarm for public help. Whether the relationship was consensual or forcible has to be decided on trial. The appellant said to have appeared for engineering examination. If he is subjected to pre-trial conviction and sentence, that causes irreversible damage to his carrier. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case to

¶34

CRL.A.No.1627/2021

¶35

¶36

grant bail. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the material on record in the integral manner. Therefore the trial Court order is unsustainable. The appeal is allowed.

¶37

The appellant is granted bail in Crime No.154/2021

¶38

of Harihara Rural police station subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i) He shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five Thousand only) with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Court;

¶40

(ii) He shall appear before the Court as and when required for the trial; &

¶41

(iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

PKN

Sri K S Naveena v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Naveena 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

Karthikeyan Ganeshan Vs Smt Sathya Geetha Rani

Mrs. Arlene Pinto Vs Mr Sunil Joseph Pinto

Smt. Pushpa. G Vs Mr. Krishnan. N. S.

Smt Sumitra L Vs Smt C Manjula

Mr Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka