Karnataka High Court
Shri. Maruthi S/O. Dyamappa Nagaralli ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409
CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100446 OF 2025
(439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI MARUTHI S/O. DYAMAPPA NAGARALLI @ ANGADI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAILAR LINGESHWAR NAGAR,
GOKUL GRAM HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580030.
(NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MALLESHI S. YADAHALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.18
16:11:45
2. SMT.SIDDAMMA W/O. SHIVANAND DODMANI,
+0530
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. YELLAPPA ARER GOKUL VILLAGE,
MAILAR LINGESHWAR NAGAR, GOKUL GRAM HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. (483
OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, GRANT REGULAR
BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.118/2022
REGISTERED BY GOKUL ROAD P.S. HUBBALLI. NOW PENDING ON
THE FILE OF II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL.JUDGE DHARWAD. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S. 376(2), 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 06 OF POCSO
ACT, PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409
CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Malleshi S. Yadahalli, for the revision petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State.
2. Successive bail request by the petitioner seeking for grant of bail in respect of the offences alleged against him in Crime No.118/2022 alleging the commission of offence for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) and Section 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim girl, Gokul Road Police Station, Hubli registered a case in Crime No.118/2022. Complaint averments reveal that 10 to 15 days earlier to the lodging of the complaint, the victim girl had stomach pain. On thorough enquiry, victim girl started weeping and revealed the incident that occurred, wherein the accused had pestered -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 the victim girl with a love affair and had forcible physical relationship and told her that said fact should not be revealed to anybody or otherwise he would commit suicide. There was also a life threat given to her if the forcible sexual relationship is revealed to somebody. Because of the continuous physical relationship accused had with the victim girl on medical examination, it was revealed that she became pregnant.
4. Police after registering the case, conducted thorough investigation and filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
5. Trial has commenced as the accused pleaded not guilty and trial is in progress.
6. After the bail application was rejected earlier, petitioner again filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court which was resisted by the prosecution and by considered order dated 09.12.2024, learned Special Judge rejected the bail application of the petitioner. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025
7. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court, in this petition seeking grant of bail on following grounds:
1. The Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner had filed the bail application after filing chargesheet before this Hon'ble trial court which came to be rejected on 09.11.2022 and being aggrieved by rejection of bail application the Petitioner preferred bail petition Before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad. In Criminal Petition No.101210/2023. which came to be rejected vide order dated 04/07/2023.
The above named accused/ Petitioner is again 2nd Time filed bail application before this Hon'ble trial court the accused/Petitioner bail application which came to be rejected on 20.12.2023.
The above named accused/ Petitioner is again 3rd Time filed bail application before this Hon'ble trial court the accused Bail application came to be rejected on 14.08.2024.
2. The Petitioner submits that, in this case the Investigating officer filed Charge sheet and the prosecution is intends to examine 34 witnesses And the Hon'ble Trial court be pleased to examined PW-01 as Victim girl and Complainant as PW-02, PW-03, PW-04, PW-05, PW-06, PW-07, PW-08, AND PW-09 and also Fully Cross examined before Hon'ble trial court. and rest of witnesses are not material witnesses. The prosecution intends to examine total 34 witnesses in this case so for the only 09 witnesses are examined hence delay in concluding trial and trial by the prosecution Hence this successive bail application is maintainable.
3. The Petitioner submits that, he was in Judicial Custody for since date of arrest i,e. 2 years 05 Months 12 days without completion of trial. delay in trial by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 prosecution Hence this successive bail application is maintainable.
4. The Petitioner submits that, the case of the prosecution the complainant is filed this complaint against accused only for personal animosity and there no eye witness of the alleged offence. and There is no prima facie materials to show that this accused is committed is heinous offence of Sexual assault as alleged by the prosecution. he is entirely innocent of the accusation leveled against him and he is falsely implicated in this case. The facts stated in the FIR, complaint and statement of witnesses is totally fabricated, concocted and without any basis.
5. The Petitioner submits that, date of incident as per complaint is 01/09/2021. At about 1.00 PM but complaint filed on- 14/08/2022 at about 13.30 AM. The FIR was delay in 11 months 13 days. The delay in registration of complaint and FIR complainant not specific and not satisfactorily explained for the delay of filing F.I.R.
6. The Petitioner submits that, the prosecution/Victim girl failed to provide foundational facts of the case like Date, Time and Week, and Month of incident is also don't know by the Victim girl. Herein the fetus is also disputed in the above case.
7. The Accused/ Petitioner submits that, ever since date of his arrested in this case on 15/08/2022, he is in Judicial custody from the date of arrest is i.e 2 Years 05 Months 12 days and he is undergone major portion of custody period without conclusion of trial. And he has suffering from various ailments. The accused is undergoing immense hardship on account of his continuous detention in custody. Due to his detention in judicial custody his parents is undergoing immense suffering.
8. The accused/ Petitioner submitted that, mere perusing the cross examination of PW-01 and PW-02, PW-05, is very huge Contradictions and as per the statement of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 medical officer as examined PW.06 goes to show that entire procedural aspects as per Sections 164(A) OF CRPC. is totally violated in the above case. Such giving more doubt about the case of the prosecutions.
9. The Petitioner/accused submitted that, The accused is undergoing immense hardship on account of his continuous detention in custody. Due to his detention in judicial custody his old aged father is suffering "Paralysis Decease" since 7 years and the accused is only one son to take care the old aged mother and father they are undergoing immense sufferings.
10. The Petitioner/ accused submits that, since he has been already thoroughly interrogated by the police earlier his production before Hon'ble trial Court. and the police authority also submitted the chargesheet against this accused all material witnesses are examined and fully cross examined before the Hon'ble Trial Court. Hence question of hampering or tampering of witnesses and trial not arise.
11. The Petitioner/accused submits that, the entire materials placed by the prosecution before the Hon'ble Trial court are not prima facie sufficient to holds that this accused has committed any offence alleged by the prosecution. and there is no material to deny his bail.
12. The Petitioner /accused submits that, he his having got both movable and immovable property in his native, as such, there would be no possibility of the petitioner absconding or fleeing from justice and Therefore the above named accused is entitled to be released on bail.
13. The Petitioner/accused submits that, he is a family man and he is having old aged parents are entirely dependent on him, as he is the sole breadwinner in the family. Under such circumstances, if the accused is continued to be in judicial custody his family members will -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 be put to much hardship and inconvenience. As such this accused is entitled to be released on bail.
14. The Petitioner/accused submits that, he is a respectable person having deep roots in the society. The accused does not have any criminal antecedents.
15. The Petitioner/accused submits that, he is a law abiding citizen and he is a permanently residing at Gokul Village, Tq-Hubballi, Dist-Dharwad and having movable and immovable properties therein.
16. The Petitioner /accused submits that, he is ready and willing to abide by any reasonable conditions imposed by this Hon'ble court including offering surety to the satisfaction of the Hon'ble Court, to stand his trial.
17. The Petitioner/accused submits that, he will not flee from justice."
8. Sri.Malleshi S. Yadahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that material evidence placed on record in the form of oral testimony of P.W.1 to 7 on bare perusal would make out a case that case of the prosecution is per se not acceptable and accused is not responsible for the alleged pregnancy of the victim girl.
9. He also contended that victim girl herself did not specifically depose about the forcible sexual -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 intercourse resulting in prosecution case doubtful. Therefore, accused needs to be enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for State/respondent No.1 opposes the bail grounds.
11. She would contend that the contradictions pointed out in the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses on behalf of the petitioner are all minor in nature. This Court while entertaining the bail application, should not venture into conducting the mini trial as the trial has already progressed to a considerable extent and material evidence already placed on record would be sufficient enough to deny the bail to the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.
12. Respondent No.2 is served with the notice and remained absent.
13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025
14. On such perusal of the material on record especially, deposition of P.W.1 to 7, it is crystal clear that prima facie materials are available that victim girl became pregnant on account of repeated physical relationship accused had with the victim girl.
15. Admittedly, victim girl is a minor. Therefore, the theory of consensual sexual intercourse losses its significance.
16. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that victim girl did not give such statement about forcible sexual intercourse and she becoming pregnant when she was enquired by the investigation agency as well as when statement came to be recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
17. But such a contention cannot be countenanced in law in view of the fact that samples collected during the course of investigation has been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and so also the report issued by the Forensic
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 Science Laboratory including the preliminary report would prima facie establish the guilt of the petitioner.
18. Any way it is for the learned Trial Judge to form a definite opinion with the available evidence on record while passing final judgment. For the purpose of appreciating the grounds urged in the petition alone, this Court perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
19. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the Court entertaining the bail application need not hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case as the trial has progressed to a considerable extent.
20. Under such circumstances, desisting from holding the mini trial from the material on record is appreciated, prima facie materials are found against the petitioner and theory of consensual sex and love affair at this stage is of no consequence having regard to the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4409 CRL.P No. 100446 of 2025 ingredients already elicited in the trial which would prima facie attract the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
21. Accordingly, without expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that grounds urged in the bail petition are hardly sufficient to entertain the successive request for grant of bail.
22. In view of the foregoing discussions, following:
ORDER i. Bail petition is meritless and hereby rejected.
ii. Taking note of the fact that accused is in custody for more than 2 years 7 months, trial shall be concluded as early as possible but not later than 30.06.2025.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13