Vankatachalaya Vs the State of Karnataka

VANKATACHALAYA S/O RAGHAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT 275 8^TH CROSS SOUTH AVENUE LAYOUT GOTTEGERI POST BANNERAGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU -560 083 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN PS REP BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX BENGALURU -560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SUDHA M D/O MARAPPA R/AT HOMMADEVAVANHALLI BANNERUGHATTA ROAD

¶15

BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU -560 007

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M. HCGP FOR R1; SRI.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 02.05.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.331/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:30262 CRL.A No. 1076 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RAMANAGARA IN CR.NO.160/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CR.NO.160/2024 OF RAMANAGARA WOMEN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376, 420, 313, 506 OF IPC, U/S 3(1)(W)(I)(3)(V) OF SC/ST ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.16/2025.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking regular bail in Crime No.160/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 376, 420, 313 and 506 of I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶27

It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant got acquainted with the respondent No.2 in the year 2010. The said friendship gradually developed into love and affection. It was stopped due to some mis-understanding between the appellant and the respondent No.2. Again, in the year 2023 they came in contact through facebook. Initially, they were exchanging the messages with each other. Thereafter, he called respondent No.2 and took her to one resort where he consumed liquor and asked her to have liquor. However, she

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30262 CRL.A No. 1076 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

denied to consume liquor, in the mean time, she was offered to have a chocolate. After consuming the said chocolate she became unconscious. After she regained consciousness, her clothes were removed and there was the bite mark on the chest. When she enquired about the incident, he showed the video recording and further threatened her that he would upload in the media.

¶31

After the said incident, she had been sexually exploited on several occasions. Hence, she became pregnant. When she informed the said news, he took her to hospital and got the pregnancy terminated. Thereafter, again, he took the respondent No.2 to Skyline resort and took her mobile and deleted the call history, thereafter, he refused to marry her. Hence, she lodges a complaint against the appellant. The respondent – Police have registered a case in Crime No.160/2024 for the offences stated supra , after investigation submitted the charge-sheet.

¶32

Heard Sri. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶33

appellant and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:30262 CRL.A No. 1076 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶38

appellant that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence in respect of alleged rape. In fact, the medical report would indicate that there is no recent sexual intercourse.

¶39

It is further submitted that respondent No.2 forcibly asked him to marry on the pretext that she was liking him. When he refused to marry on the ground that she belongs to different caste, she filed a false case in order to take revenge against him. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶40

Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, vehemently, opposed the said submissions and she further submitted that the act of inducing the respondent No.2 to accompany him for sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage has to be considered as rape. The appellant on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse on several occasions and she became pregnant and the said pregnancy got terminated. Thereafter, he refused to marry her on account of that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Hence, it is not appropriate to allow the appeal.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:30262 CRL.A No. 1076 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶45

No.2 adopted the argument of learned High Court Government Pleader and prays to reject the bail.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the respective

¶47

parties and perused the averments of the charge-sheet, it appears from the records that appellant and respondent No.2 acquainted with each other not only in the year 2023, but also, since 2010. In the year 2010, the relationship between appellant and respondent No.2 was broken on account of that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Again, in the year 2023, their friendship has been developed and it is alleged that respondent No.2 had been sexually exploited on several occasions.

¶48

Having considered the facts and circumstances of

¶49

the case, it is appropriate to grant him bail without adverting the merits of the case. Hence, I proceed to pass the following :

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶52

ii. The order dated 02.05.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.331/2025 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Crime

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30262 CRL.A No. 1076 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

No.160/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313 and 506 of I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby, set aside.

¶56

iii. The appellant is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶57

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶58

NM

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Vankatachalaya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vankatachalaya 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

M/S Trawealth India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Mahesh Reddy

Dileep @ Lakkasandra Dileep @ Dileep Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Yallappa Vs State of Karnataka

S Venugopal Vs T Y Mathai

Mr Pramod R Nayak Vs State of Karnataka