Raju S/O Krishnappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. HANGAL POLICE STATION, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶15

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶16

CHANNAMMA RAMAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. JANGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGED ON BAIL IN SPL.SC. NO.59/2024 (HANGAL P.S. CRIME NO.137/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S.376(2) (n), 376(3), 363 OF I.P.C, AND U/S.4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8279 CRL.P No. 100830 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Sri. K.H. Bagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. Notice issued to respondent No.2 is duly served and has remained absent.

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner under

¶27

Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) to grant bail in S.C. No.59/2024 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC I, Haveri.

¶28

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

¶29

The de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that, on 25.05.2024 during midnight, the petitioner kidnapped the victim, CW10 from Jagginakoppa Village within the limits of Hangal in his motorcycle, took her to various places and committed penetrative and aggravated

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8279 CRL.P No. 100830 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

sexual assault on her. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.

¶33

During the course of investigation, the

¶34

petitioner was arrested and in turn remanded to judicial custody.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence, and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that there is no evidence of external genital injury and the hymen remains intact. Furthermore, the FSL report did not reveal the presence of any seminal stains. The victim has not made any allegations against the petitioner in her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on two occasions. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petition be allowed.

¶36

Per contra , the learned HCGP contended that there exists a prima facie case against the petitioner. The

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8279 CRL.P No. 100830 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

medical report clearly indicates that the victim was habituated to acts of like sexual intercourse. It was further submitted that the victim was a minor, aged about 17 years at the time of the alleged offence. The learned HCGP expressed concern that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with prosecution witnesses and thereby hamper the fair conduct of the trial. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶40

The charge sheet material clearly indicates that

¶41

the petitioner kidnapped the victim, took her to various placed and committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on her at various places. As per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C dated 27.05.2024, nowhere she has made allegation against the petitioner alleging that he kidnapped her and committed aggravated or sexual assault on her. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 04.06.2024 she has stated that she has voluntarily left house and the accused has not committed aggravated or penetrative

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8279 CRL.P No. 100830 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

sexual assault against her will or consent and he never pressurized her for such act.

¶45

On perusal of the medical records, the doctor

¶46

has opined that there is no evidence of a recent sexual act; however, the victim appears to be habituated to acts of like intercourse. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 19.05.2024, while the victim was examined by the Medical Officer on 23.07.2024. In the present case, although there are allegations of aggravated and penetrative sexual assault, the victim herself has not made any such allegations against the accused, and her statements are not supported by the medical evidence. Considering the nature of offences, gravity of offences and the antecedent character of the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

[i] The criminal petition is allowed.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8279 CRL.P No. 100830 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

[ii] The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on he executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶53

[iii] The petitioner shall not threaten the victim or her family members.

¶54

[iv] The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly.

¶55

[v] The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the trial, including any offence similar to the one alleged.

¶56

Violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate Court in accordance with law.

¶57

NOTE : The above observation made in this petition is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.

¶58

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶59

Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 24

Raju S/O Krishnappa Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Krishnappa Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sunil S/O. Basavaraj Sutar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivagouda Basagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Ladalya Ram Bhosale, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sunil S/O Barama Belagaonkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Drupsingh S/O. Indrajitsing Thakur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Uma W/O Santosh Padmannavar, Vs State of Karnataka