Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.
Dr. Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka Through Chitradurga Rural Police Station and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.5031 of 2023 c/w Criminal Appeal No.1230 of 2023
Decided on 8.11.2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – At stage of deciding an application for bail, it is not necessary to hold a mini trial to arrive at a conclusion whether after completion of trial case will necessarily end in conviction – There are many instances of recording conviction against accused even though he was enlarged on bail – Deciding application for bail stands on a different pedestal than deciding a criminal case after conclusion of trial. (Para 10)
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 14(A)(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Refusal – Charge-sheet filed for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202 and 506 read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 and Section 17 of POCSO Act, Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act, Section 3(f) and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Merely for reason that hymen was intact, it cannot be said that girls were not subjected to sexual abuse in as much as medical report is not a conclusive evidence and it has only a corroborative value – Provisions of Atrocities Act are wrongly invoked in charge-sheet just because one of girls belongs to schedule caste – Police are accustomed to register FIR or file charge-sheet for offences under Atrocities Act without verifying and applying mind whether incident in question has taken place in background of caste-based animosity or atrocity – Bail can be denied if accused is in such a position as to influence witnesses and try to tamper with evidence – Accused No.1 is Chief of a Mutt which has a large number of devotees and followers – His position itself cannot be a reason for drawing inference that he will try to meddle with evidence – Mere allegation to this effect cannot be considered if a case for a bail is otherwise made out – Bail is not an absolute liberty – Conditions are always imposed while granting bail – If he misuses liberty and violates conditions of bail same may be considered for cancellation of bail – Bail granted. (Paras 10, 11, 13 and 14)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed. Bail granted.
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.5031/2023 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., Criminal Appeal No.1230/2023 is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Atrocities Act’ for short), challenging the order dated 31.01.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.1394/2022. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.5031/2023 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1230/2023 is the same person (he is referred to accused No.1 for the sake of convenience). He filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions 1394/2022 and 1395/2022 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Chitradurga, seeking bail and as they were dismissed, he has approached this court. As two cases arise out of FIR No.387/2022 registered by Rural Police Station, Chitradurga, they are disposed of by a common order.
2. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is as follows:
Two girls, A and B were inmates of Akkamahadevi Hostel run by Murugharajendra Mutt, Chitradurga when they were students of a high school. On 24.07.2022, A and B left the hostel around 04.30pm and reached Bengaluru around 10.00pm. An auto rickshaw driver took them to Cottonpet police station. The police telephoned Smt. Soubhagya Basavarajan of Chitradurga, who came over to Bengaluru around 04.00am on 25.07.2022 and took the girls to Chitradurga. The girls stayed in her house for a few days and during their stay in her house, the girls disclosed about the sexual harassment on them by accused No.1 who is the head of Murugharajendra Mutt being a pontiff. On 26.08.2022, Smt. Soubhagyamma took the girls to an organization called ‘Odanadi’ at Mysuru. As the girls revealed of sexual harassment on them, the office bearers of Odanadi produced the girls before the Child Welfare Committee, Mysuru. After the counseling of the girls, the Probation Officer, Mysuru District, pursuant to an order passed by the District Child Welfare Officer, Mysuru made a report to Nazarabad police station at 10.30pm on 26.08.2022 about sexual harassment on the two girls. Based on the report, FIR was registered in Crime No.155/2022 at Nazarabad police station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 and Section 17 of the POCSO Act. In this report apart from implicating accused No.1, there were also allegations against Basavadithya, Gangadharaiah, an Advocate by profession, Smt. Rashmi, the warden of the hostel and one Paramashivaiah. It is stated that these persons helped accused No.1 commit sexual abuse on the girls. Later-on the FIR registered at Mysuru was transferred to Chitradurga Rural police station as the latter police station had territorial jurisdiction. Chitradurga Rural police registered FIR in Crime No.387/2022. The investigation led to filing of charge sheet for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202 and 506 read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 and Section 17 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act, Section 3(f) and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Since one of the girls belongs to scheduled caste, the provisions of Atrocities Act were invoked.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sandeep Patil learned counsel for accused No.1 and Sri B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents No.1 and 2/State, Sri Srinivasa D C, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in Crl.A.No.1230/2023 and Smt. Deepa J, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in Crl.P.No.5031/2023.
4. The trial court rejected the bail applications ascribing the reasons that the materials produced before the court would prima- facie indicate involvement of accused No.1 in subjecting the girls to sexual harassment wh
(1) Bail – At stage of deciding an application for bail, it is not necessary to hold a mini trial – Deciding application for bail stands on a different pedestal than deciding a criminal case after co....
The seriousness of the allegations, including gang rape, influenced the court's decision in revoking the interim bail for two of the petitioners while granting bail to the others.
Law of bail deals with two complicating interests, i.e. societal interest to cure hazards of crime and to avoid repeating of the same and on the other hand principle of criminal jurisprudence referri....
Grant of Bail - Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
Point of Law : grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decision....
Anticipatory bail can be granted in offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 where prima facie offence under Atrocities Act are not made out.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authenticity and timing of allegations, specificity of the allegations, and presence of independent witnesses are crucial factors in deter....
Alteration of charge – Charge can be altered even after trial has progressed to a large extent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
