Allowed

Sri Raju B N v. State by Bagepalli P S

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2023CRL.A/670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against bail rejection. Noting parity with another accused already granted bail and lack of need for custodial interrogation, court granted bail to appellant accused No.3 under Crime No.157/2022 subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail under Rs.1,00,000 personal bond and one surety, subject to prohibition on witness tampering and court attendance.

Sri Raju B N Vs State by Bagepalli P S — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAJU B N S/O NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT 13^TH WARD, BAGEPALLI, AMBEDKAR NAGARA, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 207.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA P.H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY BAGEPALLI P S, CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT.

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. ANASUBAI CDPO OFFICER, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 561 207. ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1 R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S.14A(2) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED. 28/11/2022 IN THE CRL.MISC.NO.728/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U 376(3) OF IPC, SECTIONS 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 OF

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶19

¶20

POCSO ACT, 2012 AND UNDER SECTION 67(B) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(w), 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT -1 (POSCO) AT CHIKKABALLAPUR AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR. NO.157/2022, REGISTERED BY CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, F.T.S.C.-1 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal has been filed by the accused No.3 seeking to

¶24

set-aside the order dated 28.11.2022 passed in Crl.A. No.728/2022 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Fast Track Special Court-I (POCSO) Chikkaballapura (for short 'Special Court') wherein the bail petition filed by the appellant/accused No.3 sought in respect of Crime No.157/2022 of Bagepalli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 (3), 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 & 14 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶26

¶27

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be rejected.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1-State. The respondent No.2 inspite of service of notice has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.2 - Child Development Project Officer, Bagepalli Town, has filed a complaint stating that she has recorded the statement of the victim girl, wherein the victim has stated that, on 11.04.2022, she travelled from Hongasandra to Bagepalli and wrote Science SSLC exam and returned at about 2.30 p.m. to Bagepalli bus stand. At that time, accused No.1Narayanaswamy made a phone call to her and she told him that she is in bus stand. At that time, accused No.1 - Narayanaswamy and accused No.2-Manjunath picked her on two wheeler, wherein the accused No.2-Manjunath drove the vehicle and accused No.1-Narayanaswamy sat in-between accused No.2-Manjunath and victim girl and went to Akkammagari Temple, on the top of the hill at Pathabageppali

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶31

village and thereafter, accused No.2-Manjunath came down and after some time, he made a call to accused No.1 stating that his vehicle is broke down and he has to repair it. Thereafter, Narayanaswamy went again to the victim at about 3.30 p.m. When accused No.1-Narayanaswamy was having a sexual intercourse with the victim, at that time, friends of accused No.2 viz., Raju-accused No.3 and Suresh-accused No.4, came there. At that time, accused No.1 - Narayanaswamy got up and wore his clothes and accused No.3 took photos and videos of the victim when she is in the naked state and also asked her to come with them and they will also look after her and told her that they will also do what accused No.1 Narayanaswamy did to her. At that time, accused No.4 Suresh threatened her telling that if she did not cooperate, they will upload her naked photos and videos on WhatsApp and YouTube. At that time, accused No.2-Manjunath also came there and told her to cooperate to three of them and at that time, accused No.1-Narayaswamy scolded them and accused No.3 touched her thighs and at that time, Narayanaswamy went and called the village people, who came and scolded them and brought the victim to

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶33

Pathabagepalli village and thereafter, the victim was brought to Women Police Station.

¶34

The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.157/2022 of Bagepalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14 of POCSO Act.

¶35

The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14 of POCSO Act and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶36

The appellant/accused No.3 came to be arrested on 12.04.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant filed Crl.Misc.No.728/2022, seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 28.11.2022. The said order is challenged in the instant appeal.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶38

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant would contended that there is no allegation of any sexual intercourse by this appellant/accused No.3 and the only allegation against him is that he took photos and videos of the victim girl and threatened her to upload her photos and videos in WhatsApp and YouTube, if she does not co-operate to have sex with him. It is his further submission that this appellant/accused No.3 belongs to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the offences under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted against him. He further submits that accused No.4 who is similarly placed to that of this appellant/accused No.3 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.A. No.2181 of 2022 by judgment dated 03.02.2023 and therefore, on the same ground the appellant/accused No.3 is entitled for grant of bail.

¶40

Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and to grant bail to the appellant/accused No.3.

¶41

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for the respondentState would contend that the statement of the victim girl has

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶43

¶44

been recorded by the police and also under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the overacts of this appellant/accused No.3 are stated. This appellant/accused No.3 took the photo and video of the sexual act of the victim and the accused No.1 and threatened her to upload her nude photos and videos on WhatsApp and Youtube if she did not co-operate for sexual intercourse with them. He further submitted that the charge sheet materials also prima facie show a case against the appellant. Considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which does not call for interference of this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. SPP, this Court has gone through the impugned order and the charge sheet papers.

¶46

The statement of the victim girl recorded on 11.04.2022 reveal that after accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim girl, this appellant/accused No.4 and one Raju - accused No.3, went there and accused No.3 took her

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶48

photos and videos when the victim was naked and accused No.3 touched her thighs and asked her to co-operate for sexual intercourse. At that time, this appellant/accused No.4, who was with accused No.3, threatened to upload her naked photos and videos in WhatsApp and Youtube if she does not cooperate for sexual intercourse. At that time, accused No.2 also came and he also threatened her to co-operate for sexual intercourse. At that time, accused No.1 brought the villagers and all the accused ran away from that place. The statement of the victim girl is also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The mobile of accused No.3 has been seized which is stated to have been used for recording the nude photos and videos of the victim girl.

¶49

On looking to the entire charge sheet materials, it is seen that, what is alleged against this appellant/accused No.3 is that he took nude video and photos of the victim girl and threatened her to co-operate for sexual intercourse, otherwise, that they will upload the same on WhatsApp and YouTube. There is no other allegation of any forcible sexual intercourse by this appellant/accused No.3. The accused No.4 who is similarly placed to that of this appellant/accused No.3 has been

¶50

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶51

granted bail by this Court. Therefore, on the ground of parity, this appellant/accused No.3 is also entitled for grant of bail. The appellant/accused No.3 is in judicial custody since 12.04.2022 and as the charge sheet is filed, he is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order, which calls for interference by this Court.

¶52

The appellant has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellant/accused No.3, subject to terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The Criminal Appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 28.11.2022, passed in Crl.Misc.No.728/2022, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court-I (POCSO), Chikkaballapura, is set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused No.3 is granted bail and ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.157/2022 of Bagepalli Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶55

10 -

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:27659 CRL.A No. 670 of 2023

¶57

i. The appellant/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶58

ii. The appellant/accused No.3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶59

iii. The appellant/accused No.3 shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

PSJ

Sri Raju B N v. State by Bagepalli P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raju B N v. State by Bagepalli P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar N @ Dilip Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Shashidar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Pai Sringeri Vs Sri H P Kumar

Rangappa @ Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Alam Pasha Vs Sri R Roshan Baig

Ninganna Vs the State of Karnataka by