The main legal point established is that bail can be granted under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act based on the prosecutrix's allegations, lack of sustained injury, and the need for the appellant's presence during trial.

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. 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 followin