Karnataka High Court
Smt Anupama Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1564 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANUPAMA SHETTY
W/O. SRI. UDAYA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT. SATWADI, MUDALAKATTE,
KUNDAVARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.
...APPELLANT
[BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KUNDAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION,
KUNDAPURA - 576 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. SURESH BABU
S/O. SRI. BABU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT. SATWADY,
KANDAVARA VILLAGE,
UDUPI - 576 201
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1 (PH)
SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH)]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 24.09.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
2
SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT KUNDAPURA, UDUPI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.659/2021 AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPELLANT (ACCUSED NO.2) IN CR.NO.58/2021 REGISTERED BY
KUNDAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
3(1)(s) AND 3(1)(zc) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING
AT KUNDAPURA, UDUPI.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused No.2 has preferred this appeal under
Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) amended Act 2015 praying to set aside
the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Kundapura at Udupi, in
criminal miscellaneous case No.659/2021 and to release her, in
the event of her arrest in crime No.58/2021 of Kundapura rural
police station, registered for offences punishable under Sections
3(1)(s) and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 (herein referred to as
SC/ST Act).
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The complaint is lodged by one Sri. Suresh Babu on
26.08.2021 stating that, Kandavara Grama Panchayath as well
as Zilla Panchayath have passed resolutions to provide drinking
water under Jalajeevan Mission Scheme to the persons who have
constructed their houses in survey house No.152/P1. On
25.08.2021 at around 11.15 a.m one Ramachandra Sherigar
(accused No.1), appellant (accused No.2) and Jayashree Shetty
(accused No.3) objected for providing water to the members of
schedule caste, openly declaring that drinking water will not be
provided to them and also claimed that they will remove the
water pipes and disconnect the water connection and also
abused them in public.
4. Apprehending arrest, the appellant along with
accused Nos.2 and 3 approached the Sessions court under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition
was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated
24.09.2021.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended
that the appellant is innocent and the entire allegations are false.
He contends that no prima facie case has been made out against
the appellant as there is no specific allegation of abusing the
caste of the complainant. It is further contended that the
appellant has not opposed any scheme as alleged, but with an
intention to harass her, false case has been foisted against her.
He contends that under Jalajeevan Mission Scheme, the
appellant and other panchayat members have provided water
facility in the area. However, few persons have constructed their
house in the Government land without obtaining any license from
the panchayath. As the appellant and other members of the
panchayath have requested for providing house No's, the present
case has been registered against them with an ulterior motive.
He has further contended that even on an earlier occasion, a
false case was registered against the appellant and several
others and the police after investigation have filed a B-final
report. He submits that the appellant is a respectable person
and she is a permanent resident of Satwadi, Kandavara village in
Kundapura taluk having deep roots in the society and if the relief
sought is not granted then she will be arrested and humiliated in
the guise of investigation. He submits that the appellant is ready
and willing to abide by any conditions and seeks to allow the
appeal.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader
contends that there is a prima facie case made out against the
appellant as her name appears in the first information report and
in view of the bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the SC/ST Act,
appellant is not entitled for anticipatory bail and therefore, the
learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the appellant. He has
contended that the appellant and other accused persons have
publicly opposed to provide drinking water to the members of
scheduled caste residing in the said area and they have thus
socially boycotted them, which is a serious offence. He contends
that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(zc) of the
SC/ST Act, have been clearly made out and thus in view of the
serious nature of the offence and the bar created for granting
anticipatory bail, the appellant is not entitled for the relief she
has sought in the appeal. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the
appeal.
8. I have carefully perused the contents of the first
information report lodged by the complainant before the
respondent-Police on 26.08.2021. It is alleged that on
25.08.2021 at about 11.15 a.m., in front of Kandavara
Panchayat office, one Ramachandra Sherigar (accused No.1)
along with accused Nos.2 and 3 abused in public stating that
they have objections for providing drinking water to the
members of scheduled caste and claimed that they will cut and
remove the water pipes. A reading of the complaint would show
that it is accused No.1 who took objection for providing drinking
water and claimed that he will remove the water pipes.
However, it is added that he along with accused Nos.2 and 3
claimed that water connection will be disconnected.
9. In the complaint itself it is mentioned that after
discussing with the advocate and others, the complaint was
prepared and filed. In the complaint it is not stated that who
were the persons present when the incident took place. As per
the statement of one Ranganath, whose statement was recorded
in the course of investigation, no such incident or quarrel has
taken place. The witnesses whose statements are recorded
have not alleged against the appellant that she has either abused
the complainant by insulting his caste or objected for providing
drinking water to the members of schedule caste. In the said
facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is
a prima facie case against the appellant attracting the
provisions of SC/ST Act. However, it is for the prosecution to
establish its case in due course. The impugned order therefore
deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The order dated 24.09.2021 passed in criminal
miscellaneous case No.659/2021 on the file of the court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Kundapura at
Udupi is hereby set aside.
The application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by
appellant/accused No.2 in Sessions Court is allowed.
Appellant/accused No.2 in crime No.58/2021 of Kundapura rural
police station is ordered to be released in the event of her arrest,
subject to following conditions.
i) Appellant/accused No.2 shall appear before the
Investigation Officer within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of copy of this
order and shall execute a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with two sureties for like-sum.
ii) She shall furnish proof of her residential
address and shall inform the I.O/Court, in case
of change in the address.
iii) She shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses directly/indirectly.
iv) She shall make herself available for the
purpose of investigation and shall co-operate
with the investigation; and
v) She shall be regular in attending the Court
proceedings.
IA.No.1/2021 is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
