- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100220 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ARIF S/O. ISMAILSAB SARKAVAS, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: KOTUMACHAGI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG – 582 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH NAREGAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. SAKKRAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA VALMIKI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOTUMACHAGI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG – 582 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT ON SCHEDULE CAST AND TRIBE SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT IN NAREGAL P.S. CRIME NO. 22/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 344, 376(3) AND SECTION 4 AND 6 POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC. 3(1) (w) (i) (ii), 3 (2) (va) OF SC/ST ACT, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN SC/ST NO.19/2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 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 sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 25.10.2024, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, on bail application filed in SC/ST No.19/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC” for brevity) and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”, for brevity) and under Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”, for brevity), came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented. 3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2-father of the victim girl has filed missing complaint and case came to be registered in Crime No.22/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. The victim girl came to be secured on 23.03.2023 and after initial investigation, case came to be transferred to Naregal Police Station. Naregal Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 363, 344 and 376 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant-accused came to be arrested on 25.03.2023, was in judicial custody filed bail application and same came to be rejected by impugned order dated 20.09.2023. The appellant-accused has challenged the said order in this appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence of the majority of the prosecution witnesses has been recorded. The appellant is in custody since more than two years. The mother of the appellant is bedridden and nobody is there to look after her. The appellant is aged 22 years. Upon these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State contend that considering the prima facie case, this Court has earlier dismissed the appeal whereunder the present appellant has challenged the order whereunder his bail petition has been rejected. He further submits that there are no new grounds made out for grant of bail in the successive bail application. With this, they prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet material. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 7. This Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant in Crl.A. No.100513/2023 has observed thus:- “7. The date of birth of the victim girl is 28.01.2006, it has been noted by doctor who examined her. The victim girl in her statement recorded by Police, in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and even before the doctor has stated that the appellant/accused made her to consume the tablet and when she became unconscious, he took her. The victim girl has not stated in her statement that there is a love affair between her and the appellant/accused. The victim girl stated that she is only acquainted with appellant/accused. The doctor who examined victim girl has opined that there was an incomplete attempt made for sexual intercourse. The victim girl has already given her evidence and she has supported the case of the prosecution. The trial is commenced - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 and already several prosecution witnesses have been examined. Merely because there are some contradictions in the evidence is not a ground for grant of bail at this stage, when trial is yet to be completed. Considering all these aspects, learned special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant/accused. There are no grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant/accused. Hence, petition is dismissed.” 8. Now, the bail has been sought on the ground that the accused is in judicial custody since two years and the trial is at the fag end. Another ground on which the bail is sought is that the mother of the appellant is bedridden, there is nobody to look after her. The offence alleged against the appellant is heinous offence punishable with imprisonment for 20 years. Merely because the mother of the appellant is unwell/bedridden is not a ground for grant of bail. That the appellant is aged 25 years and he is in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6757 CRL.A No. 100220 of 2025 custody for more than two years is also not a ground for grant of bail since the offence alleged is heinous offence. There are no grounds made out for interfering with order of the trial Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE VMB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6