Sri Malleshnaik D.H. Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, THROUGH HADAGALI POLICE STATION, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR, PIN-583101.

¶15

COMPLAINANT R/O. KUMARANALLI THANDA,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

TQ. HADAGALI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA, PIN-583101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT 1989, R/W 482 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.05.2025 PASSED BY ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE FTSC-I (RAPE AND POCSO CASES) AT BALLARI IN CRL.MISC. NO.408/2025 CONSEQUENTLY AND THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.59/2025 REGISTERED BY THE HADAGALI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION U/S.376(2)(n), 354(A), 504, 506, 323, 114, 313, 420 OF IPC, U/S.4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

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

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶29

Heard Sri. Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant.

¶30

The appellant – accused No.3 has filed this

¶31

appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to set aside the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-I, (Rape and POCSO Cases) at Ballari, in connection with Hadagali P.S. Crime No.59/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(A), 504, 506, 323, 114, 313, 420 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected. Thus, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶35

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the de facto complainant and accused No.1 had fell in love, developed intimacy and subsequently entered engagement. Accused No.1 being relatives of the de facto complainant, on the guise of performance of marriage, committed rape on her. Thus, she became pregnant. Later, on the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5, the victim get aborted and accused No.1 refused to marry her, thus, they cheated her, intentionally insulted her and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Hence, victim lodged a complaint against all the accused persons. This led to registration of the FIR and investigation.

¶36

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of the respondent – Police, the petitioner – accused No.3 had filed anticipatory bail petition before the learned Sessions

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Judge, who in-turn rejected the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant – accused No.3 has filed this appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, the complainant has lodged a false complaint against the appellant and others; there is delay in lodging the complaint, but the de facto complainant has not offered any proper explanation for the delay. The appellant is aged person and is a bed ridden; he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶41

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – the de facto complainant contended that the appellant has committed serious offence. He instigated accused No.1 in commission of the offence. There is prima facie material against him. If the appellant is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

witnesses and may influence the victim and there is likelihood of he being fleeing away from justice. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Perused the material available on record

¶46

including First Information Report, complaint, charge sheet and other material.

¶47

On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the de facto complainant and accused persons are relatives to each other. The de facto complainant is none other than the daughter of brother of accused No.2. In the year 2022, accused No.2 had met with an accident. Hence, in order to take care of her health, she called victim to her house. Thus, accused No.1 developed intimacy with her and regularly had sex with her on a promise to marriage. Thus, she became pregnant. However, later he broken the promise and all the accused persons pressurized her to get abortion and they also made criminal intimidation and intentionally

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

insulted her. Thus, it appears that the entire allegation is against accused No.1 so far as grave allegations are concerned. The allegation made against accused No.3 is that he instigated accused No.1 intentionally insulted the victim and made criminal intimidation. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The appellant is aged person and he is bed ridden. Thus, considering the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, circumstances in which the offence is committed, more particularly the main allegation is against accused No.1, it is just and proper to grant bail to the appellant – accused No.3.

¶51

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that if the appellant is released on bail, he may threaten with the prosecution witnesses. Such apprehension may be met with by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9084 CRL.A No. 100343 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-I, (Rape and POCSO Cases) at Ballari, in connection with Hadagali P.S. Crime No.59/2025, is hereby set aside.

¶57

The appellant – accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.59/2025 registered by the respondent-Hadagali Police Station, Vijayanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(A), 504, 506, 323, 114, 313, 420 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:

¶58

i. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent – Police on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer / SHO.

¶59