Jeevithesh K Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11939 Kant
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2022

Karnataka High Court
Jeevithesh K Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 19 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1353 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Jeevithesh K.Reddy
Aged about 32 years
S/o. Kod and ared dy
R/at No.135/6, 14 t h Cross
Vijaya Bank Colony
Opp. Imp act Destiny Apartment
Horamavu
Beng aluru-560043
                                             ...Appellant
(By Sri K. Nag ab hushana Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1.    State of Karnataka by
      Belland uru Police Station
      Bang alore District
      Represented by S.P.P.
      Hig h Court Build ing
      Bang alore-01.

2.    Ms. Sahana K. Palimar
      Aged about 35 years
      R/at P-3, BSR Sp lendor Park
      Apartment, Vijaya Bank Colony
      Banasawad i
      Bang alore-560043.
                                           ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP for R1;
 Sri Omran Khan, Advocate for R2)
                                   :: 2 ::


     This     Criminal       Appeal       is   filed     under     Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to release the
app ellant    on   b ail    in   CR.     No.91/2022        of    Bellandur
Police   Station,     Beng aluru         for   the     alleged    offences
punishab le    under        Section      354(D),       500,     509,   504,
120B, 364, 365, 406, 420, 354, 339, 340, 349, 350,
352, 499 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc),
3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act which is pending
before CCH-71, City Civil Court, Beng aluru.


     This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:



                             JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ["SC/ST (POA) Act" for short], challenging the order dated 7.7.2022 by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the appellant's application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR in Cr.No.91/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 354(D), 500, 509, 504, 120B, 364, 365, 406, 420, 354, 339, 340, 349, 350, 352, 499 of :: 3 ::

IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed only for the offences under sections 406, 417, 420, 504 and 506 r/w section 34 IPC and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. Heard Sri. K.Nagabhushana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Sri Omran Khan, counsel for respondent no.2. The other two accused have been admitted to bail by this court. The appellant is accused no.1. It appears that there was physical relationship with the appellant and the second respondent and that the appellant had promised to marry her. The main allegation is that the appellant declined to marry her coming to know that she belongs to schedule caste. In this regard some quarrels are said to have taken place.

:: 4 ::

3. According to the court below, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a reason for granting bail. The materials placed by the prosecution indicate involvement of the appellant. But this finding cannot be sustained for the reason that if really the appellant had intention to commit the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, he would not have developed friendship with the second respondent. The materials produced by the appellant indicate that the appellant and the mother of the second respondent were together doing business and there arose some difference in the business. Whether the appellant had intention to insult the second respondent or not is a matter of trial. At this stage such inference is difficult to be drawn. The materials are insufficient. Anyway the charge sheet is filed and the presence of the appellant can be secured before the trial court. But the learned counsel for second respondent submits that the appellant has been constantly :: 5 ::

putting threat. If this is the apprehension of the second respondent, the trial court may consider it in case any threat is put on the second respondent. In this view, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore it is set aside. Hence the following:

ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru dated 07.07.2022 in Cr.No.91/2022 is set aside.
The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-
      i.    He     shall        not        tamper          with     the
            evidence             collected             by           the
                            :: 6 ::


           investigating     officer    and     threaten
           the witnesses.

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.
iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days, preferably on Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.
iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-

JUDGE sd