Allowed

Ananda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023CRL.A/2140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the second accused challenging the rejection of bail application, setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellant to protect his right to trial amidst evidence discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 28.11.2022; admitted appellant to bail on bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties with conditions.

Ananda Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.A No. 2140 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2140 OF 2022

¶7

Between :

¶8

Ananda S/o Hanumanthappa Aged 21 years R/at Kunihalli Village Pothaganahalli Post Y.N.Hosakote Hobli Pavagada Taluk Tumakuru Dt.572 141.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri Manjunath B.R., Advocate)

¶11

And :

¶12

Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

State of Karnataka By Y.N.Hosakote Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001.

¶14

Sriramappa S/o Late Gangappa Aged about 45 years R/at Kunihalli Village Pothaganahalli Post Y.N.Hosakote Hobli Pavagada Taluk Tumakuru Dt-572 141.

¶15

…Respondents

¶16

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Sri Ranganath M.R, Advocate for R2)

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 28/11/2022 passed in

¶18

¶19

CRL.A No. 2140 of 2022

¶20

Crl.Misc.No.1720/2022 of Y.N.Hosakote Police Station, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru and enlarge the appellant on regular bail in Cr.No.46/2019 now in Spl.C.No.484/2021 of Y.N.Hosakote Police Station registered for the offences punishable U/Secs.376(2)(i)(n), 506 R/w 34 of IPC and U/Secs. 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, and U/s.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru, in the interest of justice.

¶21

This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders, through video conferencing at Kalaburagi Bench, this day, the Court delivered following:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 28.11.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.1720/2022 on the file of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), Tumakuru.

¶24

The prosecution case is that the daughter of the second respondent aged about 16 years was subjected to sexual intercourse by the first accused namely, Ashoka about 9 to 10 months prior to registration of FIR and as a result she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby. FIR was registered in Crime No.46/2019 by Y.N. Hosakote P.S., Pavagada taluk, Tumakur district. During

¶25

¶26

CRL.A No. 2140 of 2022

¶27

investigation the statement of the girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First

¶28

Class at Pavagada. It appears that on the point of jurisdiction, the FIR was transferred to Kundurpi Police Station, Ananthapur District, (Andhra Pradesh). Again the FIR was transferred to Pavagada. Then the girl’s statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. In the statement given by the girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she stated that the first accused namely, Ashoka had physical relationship with her and as a result she became pregnant. Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 08.07.2019. Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 31.08.2021 and at that time she implicated the appellant.

¶29

When accused No.1 moved this court by filing appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.1538/2022 challenging the order of the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.990/2022, the discrepancies found in the statements of the girl in both

¶30

¶31

CRL.A No. 2140 of 2022

¶32

statements were clearly observed and accused No.1 was admitted to bail by setting aside the order of the Sessions Court. It appears that when the matter was being investigated by Andhra Pradesh Police, they obtained DNA report which states that victim girl is not the mother of the baby and that neither accused No.1 nor the appellant is biological father. Therefore it is very clear that in view of discrepancies in the evidence collected by the investigator, existence of prima facie case as against the appellant cannot be made out.

¶33

It is to be stated that the order passed by this court in Crl.A.No.1538/2022 was brought to the notice of the court below by the appellant. But the court below is of the opinion that the ground of parity is not available to the appellant. It is of the opinion that if bail is granted, there is possibility that the victim girl would be subjected to threat by the appellant as he appears to be a powerful person. It is also observed that appellant being accused No.2 may abscond and may not be available for trial.

¶34

¶35

CRL.A No. 2140 of 2022

¶36

When there are a lot of discrepancies in the materials collected by the investigating officer, the appellant would obviously become entitled to bail. Inference as to chances of non-availability of accused for trial or his putting threat to witnesses cannot be drawn at the initial stage unless there are materials in that regard. In this view, there are grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Appeal is allowed.

¶39

The order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), Tumakuru, dated 28.11.2022 in Crl.Miis.No.1720/2022 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

¶40

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. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶41

¶42

CRL.A No. 2140 of 2022

¶43

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Ananda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda 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

V Bharath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sindhudhara Vs State by

Mr M Samil Shah S/O Mohammed Kunhi Vs State by Inspector of Police

Navaneeth T @ Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka

Prasanna T S Vs State of Karnataka

Balram Singh Vs Shobabai W/O Dashrath Singh Mangoli