Allowed

Sri. Suryanarayana Rao, v. State by Ramanagara Women Police Station

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024CRL.A/2041/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act against refusal of bail in a case alleging rape on a false promise to marry, cheating and atrocities offences. Holding that the question of whether breach of promise amounts to rape is for trial and the accused is not needed for custodial interrogation post charge sheet, the High Court set aside the rejection and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant granted bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with surety, subject to not threatening complainant/witnesses and attending all hearings.

Sri. Suryanarayana Rao, Vs State by Ramanagara Women… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2041 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SURYANARAYANA RAO S/O. LATE VENKOBA RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT: WARD No. 28 I FOOR, MALLESHWARA LAYOUT RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA – 571 511.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI K RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS HIGH COURT, BENGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

KUM. ROOPA V, D/O. VISHAKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT No. 151, HUNASANAHALLI ROAD WARD No. 22, 5^TH CROSS JANATHA COLONY, RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA - 571 511.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI H TEJAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.MISC.No.806/2024 DATED:28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANGARA AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.118/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 312, 376, 504 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC / ST ACT, 2015, PENDING BEFORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused

¶22

praying to set aside the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 806/2024 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, whereunder the bail petition sought in respect of crime No. 118/2024 of Ramanagara Women Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 420, 312, 376, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶24

sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act’) came to be rejected.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

¶26

Case of the complainant is that she belongs to

¶27

Schedule Caste and she was in love with the appellant - accused since last 10 years. Said love affair was known to the family members of both the appellant - accused and the complainant. The appellant - accused used to visit the house of the complainant often and assure the parents of the complainant that he would marry the complainant. The appellant - accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant repeatedly and made her pregnant and got aborted by administering a pill by mixing it in milk. Thereafter, the appellant - accused is now marrying one Bindushree by cheating the complainant. Said complaint came to be registered in crime No. 118/2024 of Ramanagara Women Police Station for offence punishable

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶29

under Sections 420, 312, 376, 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act. The appellant - accused came to be arrested on 11.09.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant - accused filed bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order. Charge sheet has been filed against appellant - accused for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC and 3(1)(s), 3(1) (w) and 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant - accused would contend that the promise to marry and having sexual intercourse with consent would not amount to offence under Section 376 or 420 of IPC. Said relation between the appellant - accused and complainant is since 10 years and therefore, there is delay in filing the complaint. As charge sheet is filed the appellant - accused is not required for custodial interrogation. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶31

Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶32

another reported in 2022 Live Law SC 649 . With this,

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶34

he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant - accused.

¶35

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No. 1 – State would contend that the appellant – accused, on the promise of marring the complainant, had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter now he is marrying another lady by cheating the complainant. The averments of the complaint and statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. will indicate all these aspects. Medical examination report of the complainant indicates that her hymen is not intact. Charge sheet material show prima facie case against the appellant - accused for the offences alleged against him. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would contend that the appellant - accused had promised to marry the complainant but now the printed marriage invitation card indicates that he is going to marry one

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶38

Bindushree and that itself indicate that he has cheated the complainant and committed the offence alleged against him. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶40

this Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet material.

¶41

The averments of the complaint indicate that there was love affair between the complainant and appellant - accused since last 10 years. The said averments also indicate that the appellant - accused and the complainant had physical relationship. It is alleged that this appellant - accused has committed breach of his promise to marry the complainant and cheated her. In the circumstances, whether breach of promise to marry and having sexual intercourse under the promise of marriage amounts to offence under Section 376 of IPC is a question to be decided at trial. As charge sheet is filed the appellant

¶42

accused is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects the trial Court

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:47647 CRL.A No. 2041 of 2024

¶45

committed an error in passing the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The appellant - accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

¶46

In the result the following;

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 806/2024 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant - accused is granted bail in crime No. 118/2024 of Ramanagar Women Police Station subject to following conditions:

¶49

i. The appellant - accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶50