Allowed

Rajashekar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024CRL.A/1750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of bail for offences including rape on promise of marriage and forcible abortion. Since the charge sheet was filed and neither accused was needed for custodial interrogation, and accused No.2 is a woman not named in the FIR, the High Court set aside the rejection and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellants on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety, conditions not to threaten/tamper witnesses and attend hearings.

Rajashekar Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1750 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJASHEKAR

¶9

S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT 168, 4^TH “B” CROSS DEFENCE COLONY BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU – 560 073.

¶10

PERMANENT R/AT

¶11

Y B HALLI VILLAGE MADAKASHIRA TALUK ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH - 515 301.

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS Y B HALLI (YARABOMMANAHALLI) MADAKASHIRA TALUK ANATHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH - 515 301.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI MANJUNATH M R, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAGUNTE P S BENGALURU

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶19

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

KUM. AISHWARYA D/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT No.NILL, 4^TH CROSS DEFENCE COLONY BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU – 560 073. PERAMANENT OF: KANMEDI VILLAGE PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 DEAD)

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.No.7418/2024 ON 31.08.2024 AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN CRIME No.425/2023 OF BAGALAGUNTE P.S., BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 313, 376, 420, 504, 506, 323 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN SPL.C.NO.677/2024 AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 praying to set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.7418/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the bail petition filed by the appellants – accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of crime No. 425/2023 of Bagalagunte Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 313, 376, 420, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as `SC ST Act’) came to be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

¶30

Case of the prosecution is that appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 and C.W.1 – the victim girl were working in a petrol bunk and at the request of C.W.1 the appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 allowed her to stay in his house as she had financial difficulty for staying in the PG. The

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶32

appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 is alleged to have had forcible sexual intercourse on C.W.1 in his house on 20.03.2023 and thereafter promised to marry her and also continued to have sexual intercourse upon her and due to that she became pregnant. When C.W.1 intimated her pregnancy to appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 he abused her in filthy language and refused to marry her. C.W.1 intimated her pregnancy to appellant No. 2 – accused No. 2 and at that time appellant No. 2 – accused No. 2 assaulted C.W.1. Thereafter, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – accused Nos. 1 and 2 tried to give pills to C.W.1 for abortion and C.W.1 refused to consume the said pills. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – accused Nos. 1 and 2 forcibly made C.W.1 to eat Papaya and due to that, there was abortion in the hospital on 01.12.2023. Charge sheet has been filed against the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶34

Learned counsel for appellant Nos. 1 and 2 –

¶35

accused Nos. 1 and 2 would contend that during investigation at crime stage appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 filed bail petition in Crl.Misc.No. 12126/2023 and the same has been allowed and appellant No. 1 – accused No.

¶36

1 has been granted bail with conditions. Before the appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 could produce the surety, another case came to be registered against him in crime No. 17/2024 by Pavagada Police Station for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC ST Act as the victim girl, i.e., C.W.1 had committed suicide. He contends that in that crime also the appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 has been granted bail. He further submits that as offence under Section 3 of the SC ST Act is included in the charge sheet the appellants have sought fresh bail and same has been rejected by the impugned order. As charge sheet is filed appellants are not required for custodial interrogation. There is delay in filing the complaint. The breach of promise to marry does not

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶38

attract offence under Section 376 of IPC. The appellant No. 2 – accused No. 2 is a woman and she is the mother of appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1 and there is no role of her in abortion of the victim girl. On these grounds he prayed to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellants.

¶39

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the offence alleged against appellants are heinous offences punishable either with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. Due to the act of the appellants C.W.1 has committed suicide and a separate

¶40

case has been registered against appellant No. 1 – accused No. 1. Considering all these aspects the Special Court has rightly rejected their bail petition by the impugned order. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶43

Appellant No.1 – accused No.1 has been granted bail in Crime No. 425/2023 of Bagalagunte Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 of IPC in Crl.Misc.No.12126/2023. Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed including offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(V-a) of the SC

¶44

ST Act. The accusation against this appellant No.1 – accused No.1 is that he, under promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and subsequently refused to marry her. The victim girl belongs to Schedule Caste. As charge sheet has been filed this appellant No.1 – accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation.

¶45

The name of appellant No.2 – accused No.2 has not been mentioned in the FIR. Appellant No.2 – accused No.2 has been arraigned as accused in the charge sheet on the accusation that she assaulted the victim girl and made her to consume Papaya which led to abortion. Offences alleged against this appellant No.2 – accused No.2 are Sections 323 and 313 of IPC. Appellant No.2 –

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶47

accused No.2 is a women and mother of appellant No.1 – accused No.1. As charge sheet is filed this appellant No.2

¶48

– accused No.2 is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects learned Special Judge erred in passing the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The appellants – accused Nos. 1 and 2 have made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

¶49

In the result, the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The appeal is allowed.

¶52

The impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.7418/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 – accused Nos. 1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail in crime No. 425/2023 Bagalagunte Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42350 CRL.A No. 1750 of 2024

¶54

i. Appellants – accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶55