Allowed

Girish Alias Sanju S/O. Sadashiv Alias Sadeppa Sambarigi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023CRL.A/100419/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act against an order rejecting a bail application. The court reasoned that with the charge sheet filed, custodial interrogation was not needed and sufficient grounds were made out to grant bail subject to conditions, setting aside the lower court's rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; bail application allowed; appellant released on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with surety.

Girish Alias Sanju S/O. Sadashiv Alias Sadeppa Sambarigi… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100419 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GIRISH @ SANJU S/O SADASHIV @ SADEPPA SAMBARIGI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, PARISHWAD VILLAGE, TQ. KHANAPUR-591131, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (DANDELI RURAL POLICE STATION), R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶14

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶15

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.04 11:33:36 +0530

¶16

MISS. SUREKHA BASAVARAJ NAIK, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. NURSING STUDENT, R/O. NAVAGRAMA, GAVATHAN, TQ. DANDELI-581325, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTING THE BAIL IN SPL. CASE NO.149/2022, DATED 10.02.2023, ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE APPELLANT ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 323, 354,(B), 386, 419, 504, 506, 376(N) AND 201 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 66(E) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND U/SEC. 391)(r), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(5A) OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AND ACT, 1989 AND AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 IN CONNECTION WITH DANDELI RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.50/2022, DATED 17.10.2022, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶22

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused

¶25

praying to set-aside the order dated 10.02.2023 passed in Spl.Case No.149/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K.Karwar, where under the bail application of the appellantaccused sought in respect of Dandeli Rural P.S. Crime No.50/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354(B), 386, 419, 504, 506, 376(N) and 201 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(5A) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the

¶27

appellant/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. In spite

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶30

of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that appellant-accused and complainant-victim girl

¶32

came in contact with each other through Instagram and started loving each other. The appellantaccused assured victim girl that he will marry her and during video call with the complainant, he incited her to take off her clothes and took the screen shots of nude photos of the complainant from his mobile. The appellant-accused took the complainant on his bike to a resort during the month of June-2021 and had sexual intercourse.

¶33

The appellant-accused frequently by blackmailing the complainant took her to different resorts and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The appellant-accused threatened the complainant-

¶34

victim girl to make viral her photos and videos in social media and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶37

The victim girl filed complaint against the appellant-accused. After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354(B), 386, 419, 504, 506, 376(N) and 201 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 66(E) of The Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(5A) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellantaccused came to be arrested on 19.10.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant-accused had filed bail application in Spl. Case No.149/2022 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by impugned order dated 10.02.2023, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellantaccused would contend that the victim girl is aged about 21 years and the alleged relationship

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶40

¶41

between appellant-accused and complainant-victim girl is consensual. The complainant-victim girl is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. The victim girl on coming to know that this appellant-accused is a married man, she filed a false complaint against him. As per the medical report, the alleged last sexual intercourse is during the month of September-2022, but the complaint came to be filed on 17.10.2022 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. As the charge sheet is filed, the appellant-accused is not required for custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellantaccused.

¶42

Per-contra , learned HCGP would contend that the appellant-accused threatening the victim girl of making viral her necked photographs and videos, has taken her to resort and had forcible sexual intercourse on her on different dates. The

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶44

¶45

very act of appellant-accused attracts the offences alleged against him. The victim girl is belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The charge-sheet material shows prima-facie case against the appellant-accused for the offences alleged against him. If the appellantaccused is granted anticipatory bail, there is

¶46

chance of he threatening the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Considering the same, learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellantaccused. With these, he prays to reject the petition.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State, this Court has gone through the impugned order and charge-sheet material.

¶48

The complainant-victim girl is aged about 21 years and she is a nursing student. The complainant-victim girl is of the age of

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶51

understanding the consequences of her acts. As per the averments of complaint itself shows that complainant-victim girl came in contact with appellant-accused through Instagram application and started loving him. The victim girl went along with this appellant-accused on different dates to different resorts and had sexual intercourse with appellant-accused. Learned counsel for appellantaccused submits that the alleged sexual intercourse are consensual and have taken place on different dates. The complainant has not made

¶52

any complaint earlier, since the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse made in the complaint is in the year June-2021. The medical report revealed that there are no injuries on the body of the complainant. On perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim girl came to know that this appellant-accused is a married man, it appears that thereafter the victim girl has filed the

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶55

complaint against the appellant-accused. As the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.

¶56

The main apprehension of the prosecution

¶57

is that, if the appellant is granted bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. Without considering all these aspects, learned Sessions/Special Judge has rejected the bail application, which requires interference by this Court. The appellant-accused has made out sufficient grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant-accused. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The appeal is allowed.

¶60

The impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed in Spl. Case No.149/2022 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12760 CRL.A No. 100419 of 2023

¶63

Kannada, Karwar, is set aside. The bail application filed by the appellant-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is allowed. Consequently, the appellant/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Dandeli Rural Police Station Crime No.50/2022, subject to the following conditions:

¶64

i) The appellant-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.

¶65

ii) The appellant-accused shall not threatened the complainant-victim girl and other prosecution witnesses.

¶66

iii) The appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶67

AM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

Girish Alias Sanju S/O. Sadashiv Alias Sadeppa Sambarigi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Alias Sanju S/O. Sadashiv Alias Sadeppa Sambarigi v. the 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

Sharifsab S/O Allisab Pinjar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmukhappa Singanal, Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallavva Shobha W/O Nagappa Hosalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa Basappa Barki Vs Karabasanagouda Hanumantagouda Patil

Shivu Alias Shivraj Alias Shivanayak S/O Phakirappa Havaldar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gopal Athmaram Naidu S/O Athamaram Naidu Vs State