Allowed

Mr G Sunil Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024CRL.A/1684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail. Finding that the relationship was consensual and delayed complaint arises after refusal to marry, the Court set aside the lower court's order and granted bail subject to execution of a bond and conditions against tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order is set aside and the appellant is released on bail in crime No.122/2024 subject to a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and conditions against tampering, threatening witnes

Mr G Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1684 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR G SUNIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SON OF GOPALA G RESIDING AT No.39 2^ND FLOOR, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA GIRIDHAMA LAYOUT, NEAR HOSKEREHALLI OPPOSITE TO NEW BANGALORE TINDI BEML II STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶9

AND ALSO

¶10

No.25/18, 2^ND MAIN, 5^TH CROSS BYATARAYANAPURA, NEAR SHARADHA SCHOOL BANGALORE – 560 026.

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI SHANKAR H S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

MS. ANJALI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶19

DAUGHTER OF GOVINDARAJU RESIDING AT No.39, 4^TH FLOOR SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARANILAYA GIRIDHAMA LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1. R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH71) IN CRL. MISC.No.7511/2024, AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL CR.No.122/2024 (SPL.C.No.1395/2024) OF RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 376, 506 OF IPC, SECTION 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL AT BENGALURU (CCH-71).

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.7511/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder bail petition of this appellant -accused sought in respect of

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶28

crime No.122/2024 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred as to “IPC” for brevity) and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred as to “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶30

Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint and on

¶31

that basis case came to be registered against appellant and other two accused in Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station in Crime No.122/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 354A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC and ST Act. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against appellant –accused only for offences punishable

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶33

under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC and ST Act. The accusation against this appellant –accused in the charge sheet is that he was neighbour of respondent No.2 and he came in contract with respondent No.2 and developed intimacy and under promise of the marriage had sexual intercourse with respondent No.2 and abused her by taking her caste and refused to marry her. The appellant –accused came to be arrested on 21.05.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant –accused filed bail petition and same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant –accused would contend that victim is aged 26 years and she is well acquainted with this appellant –accused. They have love affair and their physical contact is consensual. The victim has filed complaint as the appellant –accused has refused to marry her. The offences alleged against the appellant – accused are not attracted. As charge sheet is filed this

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶36

appellant –accused is not required for investigation. There is delay in filing the complaint. With this, he prayed to

¶37

allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant –accused.

¶38

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -State would contend that the appellant –accused made false promises and had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The appellant threatened the victim girl when she asked him to marry her and abused her by taking her caste and blackmailed her. If the appellant –accused is granted bail there are chances of he threatening the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶40

perused the impugned order and charge sheet materials.

¶41

On perusal of averments of the complaint there

¶42

was love affair between the appellant –accused and victim girl and physical relationship between the appellant – accused and victim girl is consensual. The complaint came to be filed against the appellant –accused when he refused

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶44

to marry her. The alleged incident as per complaint is taken placed during the January -2024 and 05.03.2024 and complaint has been filed on 30.04.2024. There is delay in filing the complaint. The complainant is aged 26 years. As charge sheet is filed, the appellant –accused is not required for custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the appellant –accused is granted bail, he may threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. The appellant –accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

¶45

In the result, the following

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The appeal is allowed.

¶48

The impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.7511/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the appellant -

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41512 CRL.A No. 1684 of 2024

¶50

accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C stands allowed. The appellant-accused is ordered to be released on bail in crime No.122/2024 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station (Spl. Case No.1395/2024) subject to the following conditions:

¶51

i. Appellant – accused 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.

¶52

ii. Appellant–accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

iii. Appellant–accused shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶54

iv. Appellant–accused shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

DSP

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Mr G Sunil Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr G Sunil Kumar 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

Girish. P Vs State of Karnataka by Chamarajanagar Town Police Station

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Executive Engineer Vs Sri Siddappa Suraappa Surannavar

Shashikumar M.K @ Prutvi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayanthi Vs State by

Suresh Vs State of Karnataka