1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

Sri Beeresh T

S/o Late Thippeshappa

Aged about 22 years

R/o Bannikod Village

Harihar Taluk

Davanagere District 3 577203.

...Appellant

(By Sri. Rudrappa .P - Advocate)

AND:

1.

The State of Karnataka

SHO, Women Police Station

Davanagere 3 577003

Represented by

The State Public Prosecutor

High Court of Karnataka

Bengaluru 3 560 001.

2.

Sri. Mangajjara Gangadharappa

S/o. Mylappa

Aged about 55 years

Resident of Bannikodu Village

2

Harihar Taluk

Davanagere District 3 577003.

...Respondents

(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K, HCGP for R-1;

Sri. Umashankar F. Megundi 3 Advocate for R-2)

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2)

of Prevention Of Atrocities Act 1989, praying to, set

aside the order on bail application passed by the

II-Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,

Davanagere in S.C. No.63/2021 dated 06.04.2021;

allow the appeal thereby enlarge the appellant /

accused on bail in Crime No.31/2021 now converted as

S.C.No.63/2021 for the offence punishable under

Sections 376, 363, 366(A) of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO

Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST

(P.A)

Act,

registered

by

Women

Police

Station,

Davanagere the same is pending before the II-Addl.

District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,

Davanagere.

This Criminal Appeal coming on for Admission,

through video conference this day, the Court delivered

the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant /

accused in S.C.No.63/2021 seeking to set aside the

order passed by the Court of the II Addl. District &

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere in

3

S.C.No.63/2021 and thereby seeking to allow the appeal

and enlarge the appellant / accused on bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Rudrappa P for

the

appellant

/

accused,

learned

counsel

Shri

Umashankar F. Megundi for Respondent No.2 who

appear through video conferencing and the learned

HCGP for Respondent No.1 who is present before court

physically.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant during the course of his arguments through

video conferencing, that accused who is the appellant

before this court is an innocent person and he has not

at all committed the alleged offences. But based upon

the complaint filed by the complainant, the case in

Cr.No.31/2021

has

been

registered

by

the first

respondent / police by recording an FIR initially for

offences under Section 363 of the IPC. Subsequent to

registration of the crime against the accused, the I.O.

4

has taken up the case for investigation and thorough

investigation has been done and laid the charge-sheet

before the Committal Court. The Committal Court had

accepted the charge-sheet and took cognizance of

offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC, besides

Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for

offences under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of the

SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Subsequent to laying the

charge-sheet against the accused, the case has been

committed to the Special Court, which court registered

the case in S.C.No.63/2021. This is the first limb of

argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant.

4. The second limb of argument advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant is the appellant is

nowhere connected to the alleged offences despite of

which, he has been lugged into the aforesaid crime. But

the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. reveals that only on the

basis of a story created by the complainant without

5

there being any material evidence to reveal the same,

the alleged offences have been leveled against the

appellant. But there is no strong material to show that

the accused has committed th