Allowed

Santhosh Kumar H R @ Santhosh v. State by

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023CRL.A/872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal and set aside Special Court order rejecting bail in a case involving offences under IPC and Atrocity Acts, granting release contingent on bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.04.2023 is set aside. Bail application allowed. Appellant enlarged on bail subject to bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety and conditions.

Santhosh Kumar H R @ Santhosh Vs State by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20613 CRL.A No. 872 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 872 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANTHOSH KUMAR H.R. @ SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE RUDRESH H.V., R/AT MALLAPPAGOWDA ESTATE, HANBALU VILLAGE AND TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 165.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE BY SAKALESHAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA – 560 001. BENGALURU MANGALURU HIGHWAY NEAR OLD BUS STAND, SAKLESHPURA – 573 134.

¶14

MR. SURESHA, AGED MAJOR, AREHALLY TOWN, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023 IN SPL.C.NO.195/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC I AT HASSAN AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.195/2023 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:20613 CRL.A No. 872 of 2023

¶20

I AT HASSAN IN RESPECT OF THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.150/2022 DATED 25.09.2022 REGISTERED BY SAKALESHAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.354 AND 354-D OF THE IPC AND SEC.3(1)(w) AND SEC.3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.12 OF THE POCSO ACT 2012 ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLIANT DATED 25.09.2022.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The sole accused-appellant has filed this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 06.04.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.195/2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Hassan, wherein the bail application sought in respect of Crime No.0150/2022 of Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 354 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(V-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') came to be rejected.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and has been unrepresented.

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20613 CRL.A No. 872 of 2023

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as a Writer in the land wherein the victim works. In the absence of people, the appellant used to touch the victim girl inappropriately and was misbehaving with her. He was forwarding messages to the victim and asked to send her photo and used to invite her into his room stating that he is alone. She informed this fact to her brother and thus, being fed up with the bad massages being sent by the appellant, the victim girl jumped into well at about 5.30 p.m. on 23^rd September, 2022 and tried to commit suicide. She was saved and shifted to General Hospital, Sakaleshpura by her parents and she filed a complaint when she was in hospital. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.150 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. The appellant-accused apprehending his arrest, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1295 of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected.

¶27

Earlier this appellant had challenged the order

¶28

rejecting his anticipatory bail petition in Crl.A.No.2178/2022 and the same came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023. Thereafter, the appellant surrendered before

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:20613 CRL.A No. 872 of 2023

¶30

¶31

the Special Court on 20.02.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Thereafter, the appellant filed the bail application before the Special Court and it came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in judicial custody since 20.02.2023 and therefore, he is not required for custodial interrogation. Offence alleged against the appellant is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. He further submits that the victim girl and her parents appeared before the trial Court and they submitted no objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The appellant is ready to cooperate for speedy trial of the case and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP contends that the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. will reveal the acts of this appellant attracting offences leveled against him. He further contended that there is prima-

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20613 CRL.A No. 872 of 2023

¶35

facie case against this appellant for having committed the aforesaid offences and if he is granted bail, there would be threat to complainant and prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the Special Court has rejected his bail application, which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

The offences alleged against the appellant are punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. As charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is not required for custodial interrogation. More so, the complainant and her parents stated no objection for granting bail to the appellant before the trial Court. Without considering all these aspects, learned Special Judge has rejected the bail application of the appellant which calls for interference by this Court. Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The appeal is allowed.

¶39

The order dated 06.04.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.195/2023 is set aside. Consequently, bail application of the appellant is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.150/2022 of Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, Hassan, subject to the following conditions:-

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:20613 CRL.A No. 872 of 2023

¶41

a. The appellant-accused shall execute the 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 Trial Court;

¶42

b. The appellant-accused shall not threaten or tamper the complainant or other prosecution witnesses.

¶43

c. The appellant-accused shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SMJ

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Santhosh Kumar H R @ Santhosh v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar H R @ Santhosh v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Raghu Vs Sri N C Somasekhara Reddy

M M Rajegowda Vs Kalamma

Smt Mohan Ambal Vs Sri v Narayana Reddy

Jayaramaiah Vs Lalithamma

Smt Siddagangamma Vs Smt Ramakka

Shri K N Abhilash Vs Shri N Chandrappa