- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100109 OF 2025 BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O. SIDDAPPA HIREBIDARI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KARUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KUMARAPATTAN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. GEETHA W/O. LATE BASAVARAJ ELIGAAR, AGE: 39 YEARS,, OCC: COOLIE, R/O NEAR KARIYAPPAJJAN TEMPLE, KARUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 145. (MOTHER OF VICTIM) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HANUMESH DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2025 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI IN SPL. SC/ST NO.69/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL. SC/ST NO. 69/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI REGISTERED BY KUMARPATTANAM PS IN CRIME NO.52/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306, 376(2)(N), 420 OF IPC SECTIONS 3(2)(va), Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 3(1)(w)(1) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Special SC/ST No.69/2024 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, whereunder the bail application of the appellant/accused sought in respect of Crime No.52/2024 of Kumarpattanam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’, for short), came to be rejected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. 3. Case of the prosecution is that, deceased Laxmi came in acquaintance with the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused took the deceased Laxmi and under the promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with her and due to the said act of the appellant/accused, she became pregnant. The deceased, on 19.06.2024, complained stomach pain to the appellant/accused and he took her to the hospital wherein the Doctor, after examination, told that she is pregnant. Laxmi asked the appellant to marry her but he refused. Therefore, Laxmi committed suicide between 10:00pm on 19.06.2024 and 8:30am on 20.06.2024 by jumping from railway bridge. 4. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 306, 376(2)(n) and 420 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)((w)(1) of SC & ST Act. The petitioner came to be arrested on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 18.10.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the appellant is aged 23 years and he is in custody since more than 4 months and as charge-sheet is filed, he is not required for any custodial interrogation. He, further, submits that, the act of sexual intercourse between the appellant and Laxmi was consensual. The act of the appellant/accused refusing to marry the deceased does not amount to abetment to commit suicide and the appellant is ready to abide by any conditions and would appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing. Without considering all these aspect, learned Special Judge has passed by the impugned order which requires to be set aide. With this he prays to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant/accused. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that, DNA report indicates that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 appellant/accused is the biological father of the product of the conception and the deceased was the mother. The appellant is responsible for the deceased committing sucide, as he refused to marry her. Charge-sheet material show prima facie case against the appellant/accused. Considering the same, the learned Special Judge, has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated the grounds urged by the learned Government Pleader. 8. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the impugned order and charge-sheet material. 9. The accusation against the appellant/accused in the charge-sheet is that, he was acquainted with the deceased. He took her and under the promise of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 marriage, had sexual intercourse with her and due to that Act, Laxmi became pregnant. The appellant/accused refused to marry the deceased and therefore she committed suicide. The DNA report indicates that the appellant/accused is the biological father and deceased Laxmi was the biological mother of the production of conception. The deceased was aged 19 years and she was of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. Whether the act of the appellant/accused refusing to marry deceased Laxmi, amounts to abetment to commit suicide or not, is a matter of trial. As charge-sheet is filed, the appellant/accused is not required for custodial interrogation. The appellant/accused is aged 23 years. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant by the impugned order. The appellant/accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. 10. In the result, the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5542 CRL.A No. 100109 of 2025 ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Special SC/ST No.69/2024 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, is set aside. The appellant/accused is granted bail in Crime No.52/2024 of Kumarapattanam Police Station, subject to the following conditions: i. The appellant/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Court. ii. The appellant/accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. iii. The appellant/accused shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv CT-ASC