KABC010162692022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2022.
PRESENT:
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
PETITIONER/S
:
DEVARAJA
S/o Late H.N.Raghu,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at Hesaraghatta,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru-560 088.
(Rep.by Sri.B.S., Advocate).
-V/s-
RESPONDENT/S :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Rep. by. Gangammagudi P.S.,
Bengaluru.
2. SMT. RANJITHA,
D/o Ramesh Bhovi,
Aged about 28 years,
C/at Rajanna Building,
1st Main, 1st Cross, Near Rama
Temple, K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru-560 015.
(R1 Rep. By Public prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
(R2 Rep. By. Smt.YLM., Advocate)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this petition
under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking
enlargement
on
bail
in
Crime
for his
No.14/2022
registered by respondent Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 344, 323, 504,
506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r), (s), (w), (i)
of
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

2.

In the bail petition it is stated that, the petitioner is
innocent of the alleged offences and has valid and
tenable
defence.

exaggerated
the
The
version
complainant
and
filed
a
has
false
complaint with the police in order to prevent the
petitioner from seeking the relief of bail. The
victim had given three improved statement before
the respondent police. There is no prima facie case
against him to say that this petitioner do have
knowledge of the complainantТs caste and no
3
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
allegation of insult by taking the specific caste
name of complainant and it was not occurred in
public view. The averments of the complaint does
not discloses the statement as to knowledge of
caste of complainant to the petitioner and his
intention to insult or humiliate her in public view,
abused her by taking the specific name of her
caste. Even though the abuse and harassment are
stated, no details as to infornt of whom the said
abuse or harassment was made and does not say
as to who was present and heard the abuse and no
such intention is forthcoming, making out any
prima facie case. When there is general allegation
against
the
victims,
no
prima
facie
case
punishable under provision of the SC/ST Act is
made out. There is an inordinate and unexplained
delay of more than 10-11 years in lodging the
complaint and this gap has been utilised by the
complainant to force him to extract huge money
for settling the matter. There are no reasonable
grounds to believe that he is guilty of any offence
4
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
including the one under the S.C./S.T.(POA) Act,
1989, Hence, there are no sufficient material to
invoke the alleged offences against him and no
reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of
any of the alleged offences punishable with death
or imprisonment for life. He has not committed
any act of alleged offences and he did not even
know
the
caste
of
complainant
until
it
is
mentioned in the said complaint, which is filed 4
days after the alleged incident is nothing but an
afterthought and concocted story to defeat the
due claims of the petitioner and to escape from
the legal action. Prima facie case is not made out
in the complaint. There is nothing to substantiate
the allegations made under the Special Act. He
having deep roots in society and leading a
respectful life and
permanent resident of the
address shown in the cause title. If the petitioner
judicial custody is extended, it amounts to a pretrial conviction, if this petition is allowed no
prejudice
would
cause
to
the
prosecution.

5
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any of
the conditions to be imposed by this court and to
offer satisfactory surety for his appearance. Hence
on these grounds petitioner prays to allow this bail
petition.

3.

After institution of this petition, the notice is
ordered to be issued to the complainant, who
inturn appeared before this court through her
counsel has filed detailed objection reiterating the
facts of the complaint and also contended that
petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts. He has not come up with true facts and has
suppressed all the materials facts and as such the
petitioner is not entitled to get any orders at the
hand of this HonТble Court. The grounds urged in
the petition by the petitioner are all created,
concocted story for the purpose of filing this
petition and to escape from the clutches of 1 st
respondent and all are vague in nature and far
from truth. He married another lady and she has
6
given
divorce
to
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
heavy
humiliation
and
harassment by the petitioner. The Respondent
police have filed incomplete charge sheet as they
mentioned that they will file additional charge
sheet after receipt of DNA report and other
investigation report in the above case. If he is
released, may go to an extent to change the
nature of crime in collusion with police authorities
by using political influence and by investing huge
amount/finance support and may destroy the
evidences/witnesses. During the pendency of the
petition the petitioner severely attacked the 2 nd
respondent
and
threatened
with
dire
consequences. The regular and usual habit of the
petitioner is to bring women to become prostitute
by indulging them in all kinds of illegal activities. If
the petition is allowed, he may abscond, may
leave the State as well as country and he may
settle elsewhere in the world. Hence, she sought
for rejection of bail.

7
4.

Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
As against the above petition, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor has filed detailed objection
opposing the bail petition on various grounds and
reiterated averments of complaint and contended
that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is
every chances that he will abscond and not make
himself available for trial. There is every chances
that he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses
and will give threat to the complainant. Thus,
sought for rejection of bail petition.

5.

Heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the records.

6.

The
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
produced the Judgments of HonТble High Court of
Karnataka
Crl.Petition
in
Crl.Petition
No.8719/2018,
No.3215/2016,
Crl.Petition
No.200782/2020, Crl.Petition No.2433/2022, Crl.
Appeal No.100169/2021 and Judgment of HonТble
Supreme Court reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 and
Crl.A.No.707/2020. The Special Public Prosecutor
8
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
has produced the judgment reported in 2019
CRL.L.J.2508, Supreme Court.

7.

The following points arise for my consideration;
1.

2.

8.

POINTS
Whether the petitioner is entitled
to be enlarged on bail u/s 439 of
Cr.P.C?
What order?

My answers to the above points are :Point No.1:Ц
In the УNegativeФ
Point No.2:-
As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
9.

POINT NO.1:- The materials placed on record
would go to show that the respondent police have
filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5
for the offences punishable under Sections 376,
344, 323, 504, 506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC and
Sec.3(1)(r), (s), (w), (i) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989. Brief facts of the case are that, during the
year 2011, the accused No.1 came in contact with
9
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
complainant, when the accused No.1 was used to
visit his uncle house situated near Government
School Road. Such being the fact, one day at
about 6.45 pm., when the complainant was
returning to her house from Durgamba Temple,
the petitioner came and took the complainant to
the Forest like area on his motorcycle stating that
his
sister
is
calling
the
complainant
and
thereafter, he has committed forcible sexual
intercourse
thereafter
against
he
her
promised
will
to
and
wish
and
marry
her.

The
complainant disclosed the act of the accused to
her mother and the petitioner agreed to marry the
complainant after discussion with his parents and
sister. Thereafter they continued the said physical
relationship and due to which the CW1, conceived
and gave birth to the male baby. The petitioner
also pressurizing the complainant to have sexual
relationship with other persons. On 26.01.2022 at
6.30 pm., the petitioner called the complainant
near Abbigere Park and accused No.1 to 3
10
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
assaulted the complainant and also insulted her
by taking the name of her caste.

10. The learned counsel for petitioner would argued
that, petitioner herein has not at all committed
the alleged offences and he is innocent of the
offence. Further he argued that the averments
made in the complaint is itself discloses that the
allegation is comes under consensual in nature
and it cannot be considered as rape. The police
have already filed charge sheet before this court.
Prays to allow the bail petition.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for
respondent No.2 have argued that the petitioner
has committed the offence of rape against the will
and wish of the victim who belongs to Scheduled
Caste Community. The contents of charge sheet
discloses
the
prima
facie
case
against
the
petitioner. Hence, bail petition does not deserve
to allow.

11
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
12. With the rival contentions raised by both sides, it
is just and necessary to go through the contents
of complaint. On careful perusal of the charge
sheet it appears that there is a specific overt act
against petitioner for committing the offence of
rape against the will of the victim and also
pressurizing the complainant to have sexual
relationship with others. There is
a prima facie
case is made out against this petitioner. The
learned counsel for petitioner would submit that
there is a delay of 11 years in filing complaint.
According to me, the arguments of learned
counsel for petitioner cannot be considered for a
simple reason that when the petition is filed
u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C., the limited jurisdiction that
court could consider is whether the party can
tamper with witnesses and documents and also
whether there is a prima facie case on the basis of
materials available on record. It is impermissible
for this court to consider the merits of the case.
Further more, the prima facie materials available
12
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
on record discloses that the alleged offence has
been committed against the victim belongs to
Scheduled Caste Community.

13. I have gone though the principles laid down in the
Judgment relied by the learned counsel for
petitioner. In the judgment in Criminal petition
No.3215/2016
(Saikat
Maity
Vs.

State
of
Karnataka), the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
granted the bail in favour of the accused, who is
charge sheeted for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC on the ground that there was a
love affair between the parties. The principles laid
down in the above said judgment cannot be made
applicable to the case on hand for a simple reason
that, the complainant of this case has made
specific allegation against the petitioner regarding
commission of forcible sexual intercourse against
her will.

14. In the Judgments in Crl.Petition No.200782/2020
(Basavaraj & Ors., Vs. State of Karnataka),
13
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
Crl.Petition No.2433/2020 (Appoji Reddy & Anr.,
Vs.

State
of
karnataka)
and
Crl.

Appeal
No.100169/2021 (Mayur Ramachandra nayak
Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.,) the Hon’ble
High
Court
of
Karnataka
pleased
to
grant
anticipatory bail in favour of the accused of those
cases by considering that there were no prima
facie case. The principles laid down in the above
said judgment cannot be made applicable to the
case on hand for a simple reason that, the instant
petition is filed seeking regular bail under Section
439 of Cr.P.C., and the Section 376 of IPC was not
the subject matter of that judgments.

15. In the judgment reported in (2020) 4 SCC
727(Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India
& Ors.,). The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down
principles
to
keep
in
mind
while
granting
anticipatory bail to the accused involved in the
offences under SC/ST Act. The principles laid down
in the above said judgment cannot be made
14
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
applicable to the case on hand for a simple reason
that, the instant petition is filed seeking regular
bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and the Section
376 of IPC was not the subject matter of that
judgment.

16. The
HonТble
Supreme
No.707/2020(Hitesh
Court
varma
in
Vs.

Crl.Appeal
State
of
Uttarakhand & Anr.,) pleased to quash the charge
sheet filed for the offence punishable u/sec.3(1)(r)
of SC/ST(POA) Act, on the ground that there are
no materials to attract the said sections. The
principles laid down in the above judgment cannot
made applicable to the case on hand at this stage
of proceedings.

17. Under these circumstances, looking into the
nature of the offence, at this stage it may not be
appropriate to release him on bail. If the petitioner
is released, his presence cannot be secured for
the
trial
as
he
may
abscond,
tamper
the
prosecution witnesses and also may pose life
15
Crl.Misc.No.6071/2022
threats to the complainant and witnesses, may
commit similar offences. The apprehension of
prosecution are well founded. Hence, holding that
no exceptional grounds are made out for grant of
bail. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the
СNegativeТ.

18. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The Petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed.
Keep the copy of this order in original
case file in Spl.C.No.1107/2022.
(Typed my dictation directly in computer by the Stenographer,
corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 5 th
day of July, 2022).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru.