Karnataka High Court
Sahadevappa Alias Sahadevappa Halle ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785
CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103309 OF 2024
[439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SAHADEVAPPA @ SAHADEVAPPA HALLE,
S/O. YEDUVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O. HIREMEGALAGERE VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHAKRAVARTHY T.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
ARASIKERE POLICE STATION,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.
2. NETRAVATHI W/O. RANGAPPA,
Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
KALMATH
Date:
2025.02.27
R/O. HIREMEGALGERE VILLAGE,
15:55:30 +0530
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583125.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. 1973 (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW
THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.98/2023 IN ARASIKERE POLICE STATION AND
SPL.C.NO.792/2023 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-I, AT BALLARI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 376(AB), 376(2)(n), 354(A) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 5(m),
5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a), 3(2)(V)
OF SC/ST (P.A) ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785
CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code ('CrPC' for short) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.98/2023 by Arasikere Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376AB, 376 (2) (n), 354A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), Sections 5(m), 5(L), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO' for short) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) and 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST Act' for short) by sole accused (petitioner).
2. Sri Chakravarthy T.S., learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that complaint dated 31.08.2023 was filed by victim's mother alleging that she was residing with her husband and two children at Hiremegalgere village, Harappanahalli. Her daughter (victim) was mentally differently abled and used to stutter. On morning -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024 of 29.08.2023 complainant and her husband had got their children ready to go to school and left to their coolie work. On returning, her sister-in-law Netravathi came and informed that on 29.08.2023 at 04:30 p.m. when complainant's daughter came back from school and was playing with other children near home, petitioner who was neighbour had asked victim to close door of house and followed her. When she did not return, Netravathi went and knocked on door and also peeped inside window but door was not opened. Later when door was opened, victim came out crying. On enquiry, she informed that petitioner had closed door, undressed, touched her inappropriately, kissed her and inflicted implicated injuries. Later when Netravati asked victim about incident, victim reiterated and further stated that petitioner had disrobed her, closed her mouth and caused injury to her private part. Netravathi informed incident to her husband and latter to victim's father. Based on said information, complainant alleged petitioner sexually assaulted victim who was a minor and sought for taking action. Based on same, Crime no.98/2023 was registered by Arasikere Police Station. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024
3. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 01.09.2023. It was submitted, petitioner had not committed offences as alleged and was falsely implicated. It was submitted, though offences alleged against petitioner were under Sections 376AB, 376(2)(n), 354A of IPC in addition to Sections 5(m), 5(L), 6 of POCSO and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Medical Examination Report of victim would indicate there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse which would falsify charges. It was further submitted, Medical Examination Report of petitioner also indicated that there was no evidence suggestive of recent sexual act. It was further submitted, as per complaint, incident occurred on 29.08.2023 whereas, complaint was registered after two days i.e. on 31.08.2023 giving scope for improvisation or implication. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 01.09.2023 and while he was in custody, investigation was completed, charge-sheet filed and matter was under trial and already victim, her parents and relatives were examined. It was submitted, since 35 witnesses were cited in charge-sheet, conclusion of trial was likely to be delayed. On above grounds, sought for regular bail on any conditions. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024
4. On other hand, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 - State opposed petition. It was submitted at outset that School Certificate of victim indicated her date of birth to be 21.03.2013 therefore, as on date of incident i.e. on 29.08.2023 she would be around 10 years of age. It was submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim had clearly implicated petitioner and also stated about specific overt acts constituting offences. It was submitted, Medical Examination Report of victim indicated that she had sustained other injuries besides rupture of hymen, therefore, there was sufficient material. It was further submitted, statement of complainant and neighbours were also recorded. It was further submitted, trial had commenced and deposition of complainant - PW.1, victim - PW.2 and victim's father - PW.3 were recorded and which had supported prosecution case. At this stage, in case petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of he either trying to tamper with prosecution witnesses or flee from justice. It was submitted, nature of offences were heinous and fact that petitioner being a neighbour had taken advantage of differently abled child aggravated and rendered it possible for petitioner to commit similar offences. It was further submitted, petitioner was -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024 married and 47 years of age which would also indicate perversion. On above grounds, sought for rejection of petition.
5. Heard learned counsel.
6. From above, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?"
7. This petition is by sole accused for regular bail in Crime no.98/2023 (supra).
8. Offences under Section 376AB, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5 (m), 5 (L) and 6 of POCSO attract maximum punishment of imprisonment from 20 years to life. Therefore, nature of offences alleged was heinous. It is further seen petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under POCSO Act. High Court of Delhi in case of Dharmender Singh Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267 has identified various factors which could be taken into consideration while deciding bail application in cases involving offences under POCSO Act as follows:
"77. Though the heinousness of the offence alleged will beget the length of sentence after trial, in order to give due weightage to the intent and purpose of the Legislature -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024 in engrafting section 29 in this special statute to protect children from sexual offences, while deciding a bail plea at the post-charge stage, in addition to the nature and quality of the evidence before it, the court would also factor in certain real life considerations, illustrated below, which would tilt the balance against or in favour of the accused :
a. the age of the minor victim : the younger the victim, the more heinous the offence alleged;
b. the age of the accused : the older the accused, the more heinous the offence alleged;
c. the comparative age of the victim and the accused : the more their age difference, the more the element of perversion in the offence alleged;
d. the familial relationship, if any, between the victim and the accused : the closer such relationship, the more odious the offence alleged;
e. whether the offence alleged involved threat, intimidation, violence and/or brutality;
f. the conduct of the accused after the offence, as alleged;
g. whether the offence was repeated against the victim; or whether the accused is a repeat offender under the POCSO Act or otherwise;
h. whether the victim and the accused are so placed that the accused would have easy access to the victim, if enlarged on bail : the more the access, greater the reservation in granting bail;
i. the comparative social standing of the victim and the accused : this would give insight into whether the accused is in a dominating position to subvert the trial;-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024 j. whether the offence alleged was perpetrated when the victim and the accused were at an age of innocence : an innocent, though unholy, physical alliance may be looked at with less severity;
k. whether it appears there was tacit approval-in- fact, though not consent-in-law, for the offence alleged;
l. whether the offence alleged was committed alone or along with other persons, acting in a group or otherwise;
m. other similar real-life considerations."
9. It is seen age of petitioner was 47 years while that of victim little over 10 years indicating grave case of perversion. Though there is no familial relationship, petitioner is stated to be a neighbour who allegedly utilized familiarity with victim to perpetrate incident. Therefore, same could also be an aggravating factor. As per complaint and victim's statement recorded under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of CrPC, victim has stated use of violence by accused. It is also seen that victim has stated about repeated sexual assault. Apart from above aggravating factors, it is seen that Medical Examination Report would indicate injuries sustained by victim on her right hand. Even entries in column 15 would indicate -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3785 CRL.P No. 103309 of 2024 other manner of sexual assault than penetrative. Moreover trial has commenced.
10. Under above circumstances, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of bail. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH/CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11