Thippesha @ Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka by

THIPPESHA @ THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE NIJALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O DODDERI GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶14

Location: High Court Of Karnatka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522, (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001)

¶16

KAVYA .T, D/O THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, R/O DODDERI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUKA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 522.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:39947 CRL.A No. 1896 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOPKUMAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.985/2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE OF CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.95/2024 OF CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT (CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 376(2)(n),420 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r),3(1)(w)(i),3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 IN CRIME NO.95/2024 OF CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PENDING IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.18/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL 2nd ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 14 (A) (2) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (herein after referred as the 'Act') for setting aside the order on bail application passed in Crl.Misc.No.985/2025 dated 30.08.2025 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, for having rejected the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by the appellant for the offences

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39947 CRL.A No. 1896 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w),(i), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST POA Act.

¶29

The brief facts leading to this appeal is that on the

¶30

basis of the complaint filed by one T.Kavya, the Challakere Police station have registered the case in Crime No.95/2024 against this accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w),(i), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989. It is alleged in the FIR that "That complainant is residing in the above said address along with her mother and relatives. They are two daughters to her parents. Her father Tippeswamy is residing separately leaving her and her mother for the last several years. Complainant is residing along with her mother and sister at her grand-mother's house at Dodderi Village, Challakere Taluk. Her grandfather has lands and complainant used to go to work there. Prior to four years, complainant got acquainted with one Tippesha who is residing near her grand-mother's land and they are loving each other. From 01-08-2023 both of them contracting together under a drumstick tree. On those occasions under the guise of marrying her Tippesha used to have physical contact with her.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39947 CRL.A No. 1896 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Complainant become pregnant and when it was informed to him, he has not agreed to marry her saying she belong to different caste and he told her to get abortion. Complainant felt that he is saying it in an anger state and kept quiet for 6 months. Till today Tippesha has not married her and he cheated her".

¶34

The appellant has filed application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before the Special Court for the grant of anticipatory bail and the same was as per order dated 30.08.2025. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶35

I have examined the materials placed before me. It

¶36

is submitted by the appellant counsel that the investigation is already completed and the charge sheet has been already filed in this case. The accused is not at all required for further investigation. It is submitted that 7 witnesses have already been examined by the trial court, when he was in custody in the Spl.Case(Pocso) No.61/2024. Further, when the accused was in judicial custody in Spl.Case(Pocso) No.61/2024, the trial court has recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses in the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39947 CRL.A No. 1896 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

presence of the accused. The trial court has not assigned any proper reasons. The Trial Court has not passed any order as to the body warrant of this accused in the present case on hand. Since the trial court has already recorded the evidence of seven witnesses, when the accused is in judicial custody, the trial court ought to have assigned proper reasons for rejection of this bail application.

¶40

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following order,

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The order passed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl.Misc.No.985/2025 dated 30.08.2025 is set aside. Appeal is disposed off with the following observations.

¶43

The appellant is permitted to file application before the Special Court for regular bail. If such application is filed, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same on merits of the case. If the bail application is rejected, then only the trial court can take the custody of this accused. Till the disposal of the

¶44