Karnataka High Court
Yallappa Kamane vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100685 OF 2020
C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100686 OF 2020
In Crl.P.No.100685 of 2020:
Between:
1. Yallappa Kamane,
Age 24 years, R/o.: Hidkal,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belgavi.
2. Ganapati S/o.Mayappa Kamane,
Age 32 years, R/o.: Bendwad,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
3. Vitthal S/o.Girimalla Kamane,
Age 32 years, R/o.: Hidkal,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
4. Maruti Kamate,
Age 35 years, R/o.: Bendwad,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
... Petitioners
(By Shri Vitthal S.Teli, Advocates)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Harugeri Police,
Harugeri, Tq.: Raibag,
Dist.: Belagavi,
Through State Public Prosecutor,
:2:
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
2. Geetanjali Vasant Kadam,
Age 29 years, Occ: Teacher,
R/o.: Vidya Nagar, Raibag,
Dist.: Belagavi.
... Respondents
(By Miss Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP for R1;
Shri S.S.Yadrami, Advocate for R2)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
praying to grant anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the
petitioner-accused Nos.2, 6, 7 and 8 by the respondent Police in
Harugeri P.S. Crime No.64 of 2020 pending on the file of III-
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, be directed to
release the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 6, 7 and 8 on bail under
Sections 143, 147, 323, 354(B), 363, 376(2)(n), 384, 504, 506
read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w1), 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST PA Act, 1989.
In Crl.P.No.100686 of 2020:
Between:
1. Sidharood @ Siddu Pathrot,
Age 29 years, R/o.: Bendwad,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
2. Kumar Sarapure,
Age 27 years, R/o.: Bendwad,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi.
3. Manoj Sidram Vadeyar,
Age 36 years, R/o.: Rajapur,
Tq.: Gokak, Dist.: Belagavi.
... Petitioners
(By Shri Vitthal S. Teli, Advocate for P1 & P2;
Petition against P3 dismissed as not pressed
Vide order dated 15.07.2020)
:3:
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Harugeri Police, Harugeri,
Tq.: Raibag, Dist.: Belagavi,
Through State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
2. Geetanjali Vasant Kadam,
Age 29 years, Occ: Teacher,
R/o.: Vidya Nagar, Raibag,
Dist.: Belagavi.
... Respondents
(By Miss Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP for R1;
Shri S.S.Yadrami, Advocate for R2)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
praying to grant anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the
petitioners-accused Nos.9, 10 and 13 by the respondent Police in
Harugeri P.S. Crime No.64 of 2020 pending on the file of III-
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, be directed to
release the petitioners-accused Nos.9, 10 and 13 on bail under
Sections 143, 147, 323, 354(B), 363, 376(2)(n), 384, 504, 506
read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w1), 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST PA Act, 1989.
These petitions coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. Accused Nos.2, 6, 7 and 8, who are petitioners in Crl.P.No.100685 of 2020 and accused Nos.9 and 10 who are petitioners in Crl.P.No.100686 of 2020 are before this Court seeking for enlargement on :4: anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.64 of 2020 by Harugeri P.S., which is pending on the file of III - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354(B), 363, 376(2)(n), 384, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w1), 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Geetanjali Vasant Kadam, who is a physical training teacher residing at Vidya Nagar, Raibag has filed a complaint before the respondent-Police on 11.04.2020 alleging that she belongs to Hindu Dhor Schedule Caste and accused No.1 belongs to Hindu Kurubar Caste. She alleges that since 2013, she has been serving as Physical Education Teacher at Byakod Village in Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School and accused No.1 had his work at Hidkal Dam came in contact with the complainant from the year 2014, accused No.1 :5: and the complainant were in love and indulged in a physical relationship on the promise of accused No.1 that he will marry her. He had also rented a house for the complainant, where the complainant used to reside and in the said house, accused No.1 had committed forcible sexual assault on the complainant.
3. In the said complaint it is also alleged that accused No.2, who is an uncle of accused No.1 had availed hand loan of about Rs.50,000/- from her, which is also not returned.
4. Recently she came to know about the petitioner intending to marry somebody else and when confronted accused No.1 had indicated that his parents were forcing him to marry. But however, he promised once again that he would only marry the complainant. Despite such promise, accused No.1 did not stand by his promise and as such the complainant had once again confronted the accused No.1. She had also called upon accused No.2 to return the amount of :6: Rs.50,000/- borrowed by her; for both the said reasons there was an altercation between accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and the complainant, when they assaulted the complainant, abused her, they took her from her house on 11.04.2020 at around 1:00 p.m. to a Pan Shop in Byakod Village, where again she was assaulted, later she was taken to Foot Ball Ground, where she was once again assaulted by accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, who were joined by accused No.9, 10 and 13, the aforesaid accused again assaulted her and threatened her by saying that she should stay away from accused No.1 as also write a bond and give it to accused No.1 that she is not interested in accused No.1 and she does not intend to marry accused No.1 and there is no relationship between the complainant and accused No.1. At this time, they also took away Rs.12,500/-, which was with the complainant. It is on the basis of the above, :7: the aforesaid complaint has been filed by the said complainant against the accused Nos.1 to 13.
5. Shri Vittal S.Teli, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that are no particular allegations against accused Nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in that the entire allegation is as regards the relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant.
6. Accused Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have nothing to with the same, they are only friends of accused No.1. Knowing fully well of the same, the complainant has falsely implicated them and there are only vague allegations, which are made against the said accused in the complaint. He further submits insofar as these accused are concerned, there are no particular allegations under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w1), 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, the said Act is also not applicable. :8:
7. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.9, 10 and 13 in Crl.P.No.100686 of 2020 have produced the relevant portion of the charge sheet along with the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Referring to the same, Shri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel would submit that the allegation insofar as accused No.6, 7, 8 and 10 are for having committed the offences under Section 143, 147, 323, 354(B), 384, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w1), 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The allegation against the accused No.9 and 10 are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354(B), 384, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. He submits that all these allegations are ill founded and they are contrary to the complaint as filed. The disputes if any and the offences if any are only committed by accused No.1 and the other accused have not been connected and they are required to be enlarged on bail. More so for the reason that the statements of all the witnesses are :9: recorded, investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. He further submits that the accused will co- operate with the Police as also the Court in all manner possible. The petitioner would not in any manner contact the complainant, they would not even visit or go to the place of residence or work of the complainant namely residence at Vidya Nagar, Raibag and/or the place of work at Byakod village. He further submits that apart from the above the petitioners would comply with any conditions that may be imposed on the said petitioners for their enlargement on anticipatory bail.
8. Per contra, Shri S.S.Yadrami, learned counsel for respondent No.2-defacto complainant would strongly oppose the grant of anticipatory bail. He would submit that there are serious allegations, which have been made insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Though the main allegations are against accused No.1. Accused No.2 has borrowed the money, he has : 10 : indulged in kidnapping of the complainant as also abusing her making use of her caste. Accused Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have illegally detained and assaulted the complainant, they have extorted money of Rs.12,500/- from the complainant. He further relies on the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act to contend that no bail can be granted to the accused. He further relies on the photographs, which have been produced along with the memo to contend that there are serious injuries, which have been caused to the complainant and the petitioners therefore are not entitled for any consideration, equitable or merciful. The petitioners are not deserving for any mercy ought not to be granted anticipatory bail.
9. Ms. Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State would submit that the petitioners have assaulted a woman and caused injuries to her, this is on account of the promise of marriage by accused No.1 to the complainant that they had indulged in : 11 : sexual relation, the other accused have willfully supported accused No.1 in committing the various offences, there is danger of the petitioners tampering with the evidences and/or witnesses, if they are enlarged on anticipatory bail. Therefore, she also opposes the grant of anticipatory bail.
10. Heard Shri Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Shri S.S.Yadrami, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the papers.
11. On a perusal of the complaint as filed, it is seen that the main allegations are made against accused No.1 and accused No.2, in that accused No.1, who had falsely promised marriage and indulged in offences of forcible sexual assault under Section 376 of IPC. It is stated that accused No.1 is in judicial custody and as a matter of fact he is not one of the petitioners in this case.
: 12 :
12. As regards accused No.2, there are serious allegations, which have been made against him firstly as regards having borrowed Rs.50,000/-; secondly he has not returned the amount; thirdly he having joined the accused No.1 in kidnapping the complainant, illegally confining her and also threatening her with dire consequences in the event of the complainant proceeding with the relationship with accused No.1 and/or informing anybody about the relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant. It is accused No.2, who has traveled with accused No.1 in a car, took the complainant in the said car to a Pan Shop, later to Foot Ball Ground and thereafter to a farmhouse, where under threat accused Nos.1 and 2 got bond executed by the complainant. It is also alleged that accused No.2 abused the complainant by using her caste. These are serious allegations and there being serious overt acts which are alleged against accused No.2 and accused No.2 being active : 13 : accomplice of accused No.1 as per the statement made, I am of the considered opinion that the application for anticipatory bail sought for by accused No.2 i.e., petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.100685 of 2020 is required to be rejected and is so rejected.
13. As regards accused Nos.6 to 8 are stated to be the persons, who joined at the football field and it is alleged that they have joined accused Nos.1 and 2 in assaulting the complainant. Accused Nos.9 & 10 are stated to have joined at the farmhouse and have pressurized the complainant to execute a bond in terms that the bond had already been prepared and was forcibly got signed by the complainant. The entire sequence of events and the nature of the crime at present appear to be one which has been instigated by accused No.1 and accused No.2, accused Nos.6 to 10 have joined them to assist Accused No.1 and 2 and therefore, the allegations which are made against : 14 : accused Nos.6 to 10 do not appear to be so serious as to deny them the benefit of anticipatory bail.
14. Insofar as the allegations under Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Act are concerned, these allegations are also mainly made against accused Nos.1 and 2, in the sense that those statements are stated to have been made before Accused Nos.6 to 10 joined them. Thus, the embargo under Section 18 would only apply insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned and not to accused Nos.6 to 10.
15. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion after having bestowed my anxious consideration to the matter that the accused Nos.6 to 10 are required to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, though by imposing some stringent conditions, so as to allay apprehension on behalf of Sri. S.S.Yadrami, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 defacto complainant and Ms. Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP. Hence, I pass the following:
: 15 :
ORDER
16. The anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. insofar as Petitioner Nos.1 & 2/accused Nos.9 & 10 in Criminal Petition No.100686/2020 and Petitioner Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.6, 7 & 8 in Criminal Petition No.100685/20 are allowed, and the anticipatory bail petition insofar as Petitioner No.1/accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.100685/2020 is rejected.
17. The aforesaid accused Nos.6 to 10 (petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in Criminal Petition No.100686/2020 and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Petition No.100685/2020) are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.64 of 2020 by Harugeri P.S., which is pending on the file of III - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) each : 16 : with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall visit and sign the attendance register with the Harugeri Police Station, once in 15 days;
(iii) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner;
(iv) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not in any manner try to contact the complainant and or Sri. Sanjay Kamane;
(v) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not visit the Byakod village where the defacto complainant carries on her work;
(vi) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not visit Raibag city, where the defacto complainant resides till the completion of Trial;
(vii) The petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 10 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission;: 17 :
(viii) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled;
The observation made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter on merits without being influenced by this order.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp & Svh