S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13943/2023

H. EKANTHAIAH

Vs

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ANR.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Date : 23-04-2024.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Learned AAG appearing for the State of Karnataka
prays for and is granted a week’s time to file
counter affidavit which according to him is ready and
has been sent for a minor clarification. The
petitioner will have a week thereafter to file
rejoinder affidavit.

List again on 14th May, 2024.
SLP(Crl) No. 1565/2024
Learned counsel appearing for the parties in
particular, the Advocates-on-Record are requested to
erase/redact the names of the victims wherever they
have occurred in the records filed by them before
this Court. This applies to the learned AOR for
respondents also in their pleadings. This may be done
within a week. Registry will cooperate in the said
exercise.
Father of one of the victims has filed the present
petition assailing the correctness of the order dated
8th November, 2023 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.
5031/2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1230/2023 whereby
the High Court has allowed the Criminal Appeal No.
1230/2023 as also Criminal Petition No. 5031/2023 and
has granted bail to respondent no. 3(herein) subject
to conditions mentioned in the operative portion of
the impugned order.
We have heard the matter at great length.
Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the
petitioner, apart from other arguments had vehemently
submitted that the respondent no. 3 being an affluent
and influential person, if allowed to remain on bail
in a case where victims are belonging to an oppressed
class and weaker section of the society, there is
every likelihood that he may adversely influence the
victims and other witnesses of fact. The State has
supported the above submissions of Ms. Bhat. On the
other hand, Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that above
apprehension is totally misconceived. The respondent
no. 3 was released on bail on 08.11.2023 more than
five months back, but no such complaint has been made
by any party of either threatening or influencing the
victims or witnesses.
Having considered the submissions and perused the
material on record, we are prima facie of the view
that in order to ensure a fair trial not only to the
accused but also to the victims, it would be in the
interest of justice that the respondent no. 3 may
remain in custody during the time the witnesses of
fact are examined.
In all there are 84 witnesses mentioned in the
charge sheet. According to the learned AAG appearing
for the State out of these 84 witnesses, there are
about 12 to 13 witnesses which include the victims,
their parents, complainants and other Officers or
Workers/Employees of the Math who are likely to be
influenced by respondent no. 3. As such, they may be
examined at a time when respondent no. 3 is in
custody. Mr. Luthra, learned senior counsel objected
and submitted that there are maximum 9 to 10 such
witnesses. We leave it to the wisdom of the Public
Prosecutor to decide the said number by identifying
its witnesses of fact.
The High Court has passed a very detailed order
impugned in this petition which according to learned
counsel for the parties has touched upon the merits
of the case. We are not inclined to pass any detailed
order, as it may ultimately affect the trial in some
way or the other.
Another aspect which needs to be mentioned is that
Respondent no. 3 filed petition before the High Court
challenging the charge order. The High Court by an
order dated 11th March, 2024 passed in Criminal
Petition Nos. 4511 of 2023 and 4531 of 2023 quashed
certain charges and sustained some. The charges which
have been quashed are the following five charges :-
1. Sections 3 and 7 of Religious Institution
Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988;
2.Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v)(v-a) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989;
5
3. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2015;
4. Gang rape – Section 376DA of the IPC; and
5. Destruction of evidence – Section 201 of the
IPC
The remaining three charges which have been
sustained are following: –
1.Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC;
2. Section 376(3) of the IPC; and
3. Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Further direction issued by the High Court in its
order dated 11th March, 2024 is that the Trial
Court/Special Court will frame the charges afresh and
thereafter proceed with the trial.
Another issue which needs to be addressed is
regarding the regular appointment of the Presiding
Officer of the Special/POCSO Court which at present
is said to be vacant and the charge/work of the
Special Court is with another Officer as an
additional charge.
Shri Avishkar Singhvi, learned AAG appearing for
the State of Karnataka, upon instructions, has stated
that regular posting of an Officer has already been
made for the Special/POCSO Court and the Officer will
be joining in the first week of May, 2024.
The directions which we are going to issue do not
mean that the prosecution will examine only these 12-
13 witnesses during the time which we are fixing.
That is not the intention. The idea is to expedite
the trial and conclude it at the earliest. However,
while doing so, make it sure that the relevant
witnesses of fact are examined at a time when the
respondent no. 3 is in judicial custody.
In view of the above facts and circumstances as
recorded and considering the submissions advanced by
the parties the petition is disposed of with the
following directions :-
1. The impugned order granting bail to the
respondent no. 3 shall remain in
abeyance or, in other words, the effect
and operation of the impugned order
shall remain stayed. The period of stay
will be initially for a period of four
months from today, which may be
extended for a further period of two
months if required.
2. Respondent no. 3 will surrender within
a week from today before the Trial
Court.
3. The Trial Court forthwith will frame
the charges afresh in the light of the
order dated 11th March, 2024 passed by
the High Court referred to above within
a week from the date the Regular
Officer joins the Special Court at
Chitradurga.
4. Prosecution will submit the list of 12-
13 witnesses of fact forthwith before
the Trial Court, in any case, at the
time of framing of charges.
5. The Trial Court, after framing the
charges, will proceed to conduct the
trial as expeditiously as possible and
if necessary, on day to day basis and
ensure that the witnesses of fact which
the prosecution wishes to produce are
examined within four months.
6. Prosecution will make sure that it will
not seek any adjournments and will
produce its witnesses on the dates
given by the Trial Court.
7. Respondent no. 3 and other accused will
extend all cooperation in the trial and
not seek any adjournments except for
very exceptional reasons.
8. Trial Court will observe the conduct of
the parties and if it finds that if any
of the parties are unnecessarily trying
to delay the trial, it shall make a
note of the same and forward it to this
Court.
9. If for no reason attributable to the
accused or to the prosecution, the
examination of the aforesaid 12 to 13
witnesses of fact is not completed
within a period of four months, the
Trial Court will send a report to this
Court seeking extension of time for two
months and the Registry will list the
matter accordingly.
10. If the 12-13 witnesses, list of which
is provided by the Public Prosecutor
are examined within four months, the
respondent no. 3 would be released on
the completion of four months. However,
if the time is extended for two months
further then respondent no. 3 would be
released on completion of period of six
months.
11.Further, the general direction is
issued to Trial Court to conclude the
trial at the earliest within the
aforesaid period or within a period of
one year.
With the aforesaid directions, the Special Leave
Petition is disposed of.
Registry will forward a copy of the order to the
Trial Court. It will be open for the parties to file
the same before the Trial Court, where upon the
Trial Court will act accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
SLP(Crl.) No. 4803-4804/2024
Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2
and 3 pray for and are granted four weeks’ time to
file counter affidavit. Petitioner(s) to file
rejoinder affidavit within three weeks thereafter.
List on 16th July, 2024.
De-tag the present matter from SLP(Crl.) No. 13943/2023.