Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 742 (KAR)

Pundalik v. State of Karnataka

2022-06-14

M.G.UMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : M.G. Uma, J. 1. Appellant being the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC/ST (PA) Act'), in Crime No. 28/2022 of Nelogi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 448, 504, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), along with Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant. 2. The prosecutrix filed the first information against the accused alleging commission of the above said offences. The FIR was registered by Nelogi police station and investigation was undertaken. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. It is the case of the prosecution that accused developed intimacy with the prosecutrix and he used to visit her house and used to talk with her over phone. He asked the informant to come to the land of one Mallugouda and he has criminally intimidated her. Accordingly, prosecutrix went to the land and accused committed sexual assault. Thereafter, he committed sexual assault in the said land on the victim repeatedly. On 04.03.2022, the accused called the prosecutrix to the land at about 11.30 p.m. Accordingly, she went there and the accused committed sexual assault. Again on the next date i.e., 05.03.2022, the accused called the prosecutrix over phone and when the prosecutrix had not talked with him over phone, accused came to the house of the prosecutrix on the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-32/ES-5414, abused her in filthy language by referring to her caste, since she belongs to Scheduled Caste and also assaulted her with hands and criminally intimidated. Thereby he committed the above said offences. 3. Heard Sri R.S. Lagali, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix is aged about 35 years and she is having four children. Even as per the case made out by the prosecution, since from several days, there was consensual relationship between the two. Even though, it is stated that accused has assaulted, specific allegation is that he assaulted with hands. The medical report produced by the Investigating Officer discloses that she has not sustained any injury. Even as per the case made out by the prosecution, since from several days, there was consensual relationship between the two. Even though, it is stated that accused has assaulted, specific allegation is that he assaulted with hands. The medical report produced by the Investigating Officer discloses that she has not sustained any injury. On the other hand, history of the incident provided by the prosecutrix herself discloses that it was purely consensual relationship and none of the provisions of the IPC or of the special enactment are attracted. The appellant is aged about 28 years and he is in judicial custody since 07.03.2022. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment, as the trial in the matter may take sufficiently long period of time. The appellant is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the appeal and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the appeal submitted that serious allegations are made against the appellant for having committed the offence. Appellant has committed the offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life. The prosecutrix herself filed the first information and after due investigation, charge sheet is filed which makes out strong prima facie offence against the accused. If appellant is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of he committing similar offence or he may threaten or tamper the prosecution witness. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Act?" My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 7. The prosecutrix who is aged about 35 years, lodged the first information against the accused making serious allegations. Charge sheet is filed in that regard. Even though medical certificate is produced along with the charge sheet, no injury was sustained by the prosecutrix. However, history of the incident was said to have been narrated by the prosecutrix herself. The prosecutrix who is aged about 35 years, lodged the first information against the accused making serious allegations. Charge sheet is filed in that regard. Even though medical certificate is produced along with the charge sheet, no injury was sustained by the prosecutrix. However, history of the incident was said to have been narrated by the prosecutrix herself. In view of these facts and circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant is required for investigation or for any other reason except to ensure his presence before the trial Court during trial. Therefore, I am of the opinion that appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the appellant may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 28/2022 of Nelogi Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences. b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required. In case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.