Allowed

Mr Nagaraj S/O. Demappa Jangali, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024CRL.A/100337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed criminal appeal against a bail rejection order. The court held that while rape is heinous, the complaint lacked ingredients of caste-based tort under SC/ST Act. Bail was granted with personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for similar sum, subject to non-threating witnesses and not leaving jurisdiction.

Mr Nagaraj S/O. Demappa Jangali, Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100337 OF 2024 (U/S 14 A(2) of

¶8

SC and ST ACT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR NAGARAJ S/O. DEMAPPA JANGALI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: BADASADAR ONI, KANVI, KARVINAKOPPA, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591304

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SHEKHARGOUDA M.NAGANURI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH INSPECTOR, KHADE BAZAR POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.

¶17

MRS. KUMKUM DILIPA KAMBLE, AGE.:21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: 5TH CROSS, SHASTRI NAGAR, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI-587311

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MANOJ N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF SC/ST ACT, PRAYING TO:

¶23

a) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC.NO. 635/2024; AND

¶24

b) TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND PASS AN ORDER TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT (ACCUSED NO.1) ON BAIL IN KHADE BAZAR P.S. CR.NO.27/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2) (n), 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard Sri Shekhargouda M.Naganuri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Praveena Y.Devaraddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri Manoj N.Bikkannavar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶30

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant lodged a complaint on 02.05.2024 before the jurisdictional police in Crime No.27/2024 stating that the appellant herein induced her that he would marry her and took her to Moodabidre, Mangalore, and kept her in a lodge and committed sexual assault. On 08.01.2023, he brought her to Belagavi and left her to her mother’s house. After one month, again he took her to his custody and kept her in a rented house situated at Shashtri Nagar, Belagavi and thereafter, he took her to the Axis Bank and obtained loan in her name stating him as her husband. Whenever she insisted for the marriage, he used to refuse the said marriage in one or the other way and postponing the marriage and thereafter, he assaulted her and caused injuries. On 12.03.2024, when she informed the mother of the appellant herein regarding the incident and assault, his mother also threatened the complainant that she would not be spared. Being aggrieved by the act of the appellant herein and his family members, she lodged a complaint stating that she has

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶32

been cheated and committed rape and also threatened her

¶33

with dire consequences etc.

¶34

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged incident had taken place on 07.01.2023. However, she lodged a complaint on 02.05.2024. The incident of rape alleged in the complaint appears to be baseless and bald and there is no evidence to show that the appellant has committed the rape on the complainant.

¶35

It is further submitted that respondent No.2

¶36

herein insisting the appellant who is none other than the friend of her elder brother for marriage. When he refused to marry her, she lodged a false case and sent him to judicial custody. The appellant is innocent of the alleged offence and is working in a private sector and permanent resident of Badasadar Oni, Kanvi, Karvinakoppa, and aged about 26 years. He is the earning member of the family. The entire family is depending on his income. Therefore, it may be appropriate to consider the bail application and he may be enlarged on bail. To substantiate his case, he relied on the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶38

unnumbered paragraph No.3 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.962/2022 between Ansaar Mohammad and the State of Rajasthan and Another,.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the said submission and submitted that there is threat to the life of the complainant. If he is released on bail, there may be chances of committing the similar offences and also there may be chances of absconding from the case.

¶40

It is further submitted that it is a proved fact that the appellant took respondent No.2 to Moodabidri and there stayed for a day and committed rape on her. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail.

¶41

The learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submitted that since the appellant committed the heinous offence, he is not entitled for bail. Making such submission, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the appeal, it can be gathered from the complaint that the complainant after dissolving her marriage with her first husband staying alone with her son. The appellant herein is the friend of her elder brother said to have insisted her for marriage and also induced her that she would get a good job at Moodabidri with all facilities etc. and took her along with her son and made two separate rooms in the lodge. On the same day, on 07.01.2022, he committed sexual intercourse with her. On the following day, on 08.01.2023, she was brought to her mother’s house, Belgaum and he left her.

¶44

Though it is stated in the complaint that she was taken along with him and kept her in a separate house for almost one month and thereafter, he keep on postponing the marriage along with her, there is no ingredients in respect of offence under Section 376(2)(a) of IPC. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ansaar Mohammad and the State of

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶46

Rajasthan (stated supra), unnumbered paragraph No.3 of the judgment, which reads thus:-

¶47

“In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.”

¶48

On reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear that complaint cannot be given with bald and baseless allegations.

¶49

On careful reading of the entire complaint, there is no whisper regarding the caste of the complainant by the appellant. To constitute an offence under the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 (Amended), the act of committing sexual assault must be made on account of that the victim belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribes. In the present case, there are no such averments. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10038 CRL.A No. 100337 of 2024

¶51

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The appeal is allowed.

¶54

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.27/2024 of respondent/police station, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

a) The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶56

b) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

CLK,VMB CT: CNB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Mr Nagaraj S/O. Demappa Jangali, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nagaraj S/O. Demappa Jangali, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Anthoy F Fernandes Vs Jayashankar Kalkundrikar

Basavaraj @ Basappa Rudragouda Nagaral, Vs the State of Karnataka

K M Praveen S/O Sugurayya Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Ravi Aliyas Bhayjan S/O Navalsingh Sengar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Revanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Nityanand S/O. Vithal Revankar, Vs the State of Karnataka