Karnataka High Court
Smt. Tara. T. M vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29329
CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1206 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. TARA. T. M.
D/O. MAHENDRA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT MARIYANNA TEMPLE
OPP. S.S. TEMPLE ROAD
VINIBHANAGARA
TUMAKURU.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI YABESH M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
TUMKUR TOWN POLICE STATION
TUMKUR, KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by BENGALURU-560 001.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH 2. MANJULA. P. N. (PSI)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
TUMAKUR UNIT, 4TH CROSS,
N. MALLAPPA ROAD,
SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU-572 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R. HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADOVATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2024
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29329
CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.691/2024 BY THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN
CR.NO.173/2024 AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HER ARREST FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 109, 196,
197, 198, 199 AND 420 OF IPC, SEC. 3(1)(q) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT AND SEC. 5-A AND 5(b) OF KARNATAKA SC/ST AND
OTHER BACKWARD CLASES (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT
etc) RULES AT TUMAKURU TOWN POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU
TOWN CIRCLE, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) This appeal is filed by appellant -accused No.1 praying to set aside the order 06.05.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.691/2024 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of this appellant-accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.173/2024 of Tumakuru Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 109, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as 'IPC' for brevity), Section 3(1)(q) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29329 CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred as 'SC and ST Act' for brevity) and Section 5(A) and 5(b) of the Karnataka SC/ST and other Backwards Classes (Reservation of Appointment, Etc) Rules, 1990 came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -State.
3. The Caste Verification Committee, Tumakuru passed an order that appellant -accused No.1 in collusion with the other accused have secured a fake caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to Adi Karnataka caste though in reality she belonged to Goudar caste which is not a scheduled caste. The Caste Verification Committee cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of appellant -accused No.1. Further, respondent No.2 was directed to file a complaint against the appellant -accused No.1 for grant of false caste certificate. On that basis -4- NC: 2024:KHC:29329 CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024 complainant has been filed and case came to be registered. The appellant -accused No.1 apprehending her arrest filed anticipatory bail petition. The Special Court rejected the said bail petition on the ground that there is bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act bars granting anticipatory bail in cases where offence alleged prima facie attracts the provisions of SC and ST Act and the appellant -accused No.1 is required for custodial interrogation.
4. It was contended that the appellant -accused No.1's parents have entered the caste in the records of this appellant -accused No.1 and at that time appellant - accused No.1 was minor and she was not aware of the said aspect. On coming to know that she belongs to schedule caste, she filed suit in O.S.No.299/2016 on the file of the Principle Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Tumakuru to declare her caste as Tamil Goudar instead of Schedule Caste and sought directions to correct her caste in records maintained by concerned Authority. The said suit came to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29329 CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024 be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The appellant -accused No.1 has been selected under category of GM-Women and not under schedule caste category. The appellant -accused No.1 has not availed any benefit pertaining to person belonging to schedule caste. The appellant -accused No.1 has not given any false or frivolous information to public servant to attract offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC and ST Act and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not attracted. Even the appellant -accused No.1 has filed application on 05.01.2015 to DG and HRD(T), Shakti Nagar, Raichuru to consider her appointment in continue her service as general merit. He contends that therefore, there is no intention on the part of the appellant -accused No.1 to deprive benefits to any of the person belongs to schedule caste. The appellant -accused No.1 is ready to cooperate with police in investigation. The appellant -accused No.1 is women. With this, he prays to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant -accused No.1. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29329 CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024
5. Section 3(1)(q) of the SC and ST Act applies to any person who gives false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of schedule caste or a schedule tribe. The caste of the appellant -accused No.1 has been entered by her parents in the records and at that time she was minor. The appellant -accused No.1 has not given any false and frivolous information to any public servant. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that offence punishable under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC and ST Act is attracted and invoke bar under Section 18 of ST And ST Act. The trial Court without considering all these aspects has rejected anticipatory bail petition by the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The offences alleged against the appellant -accused No.1 are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29329 CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024
6. The appellant -accused No.1 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the following ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.691/2024 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru is set aside.
iii) The anticipatory bail petition of the appellant-
accused No.1 stands allowed and she is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 173/2024 of Tumakuru Town Police Station subject to the following conditions;
a) The appellant -accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh -8- NC: 2024:KHC:29329 CRL.A No. 1206 of 2024 only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.
b) The appellant -accused No.1 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigation Office within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and execute the personal bond and furnish surety.
c) The appellant -accused No.1 shall cooperate with the Police in the investigation.
d) The appellant -accused No.1 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25