Anusha Reddy vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11361 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1300 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Anusha Reddy
D/o Vishwanath
Aged 31 years
R/at No.74, 2 n d cross
Domlur Layout
Beng aluru North
Beng aluru - 560 071
                                          ...Appellant
(By Sri R.Madhusudhana Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1.   State of Karnataka
     By Belland ur Police Station
     Beng aluru
     Reptd. by Public Prosecutor
     City Civil and Sessions Judge
     Beng aluru

2.   Sahana K Palimar
     Aged 35 years
     R/at No.P-3
     BSR Splendor Park Apartments
     Vijaya Bank Colony
     Banaswadi, Beng aluru - 560 043
                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
    Sri Omran Khan, Advocate for R2-Absent)
                                   :: 2 ::


      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to release the
app ellant on bail in the event of arrest by the
respondent Bellandur Police Station, Bengaluru in
Crime No.91/2022 for the offences under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST
(POA) Act and Sections 354D, 500, 509, 504, 120B,
364, 365, 406, 420, 354, 339, 340, 349, 350, 353 and
499 read with Section 34 of IPC.

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

                             JUDGMENT

Heard Sri R.Madhusudhana Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellant and the learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-

State. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section

14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challenging

the correctness of the order dated 14.07.2022

passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru

(CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.6467/2022, rejecting the

appellant's application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail.

:: 3 ::

3. The appellant being accused No.3 in the

private complaint made by the second respondent

for the offences under Sections 354D, 500, 509,

504, 120B, 364, 365, 406, 420, 354, 339, 340,

349, 350, 353 and 499 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc),

3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

4. The second respondent being the

complainant alleged that while she was in love and

living-in relationship with the first accused, the

latter backtracked from the promise of marriage as

she belonged to scheduled caste. She also came

to know that accused No.1 had sexual relationship

with the appellant herein. A bear perusal of the

complaint indicates that the only allegation found

against the appellant is about relationship between

her and the first accused. There is nothing to

indicate that appellant had intention to humiliate

the second respondent in the name of her caste.

:: 4 ::

In fact, in para 13 of the impugned order, the trial

court Judge has clearly observed that there is

absolutely no prima-facie materials in order to

invoke the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, when the main

allegations are against accused No.1, in view of

specific observation found in para 13 of the order,

nothing prevented the trial court from granting

anticipatory bail to the appellant. Very strangely

giving importance to relationship between the

appellant and the first accused, anticipatory bail

has been refused. The impugned order shows that

the trial court Judge has not applied his mind

while deciding the application for anticipatory bail.

In this view, I find a case for allowing the appeal.

Therefore the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed .

The ord er d ated 14.07.2022 p assed in Crl.Misc.6467/2022 by the LXX Additional :: 5 ::

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), is set asid e.

Application und er Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the respond ent police in connection with Crime No.91/2022, she shall be released on bail subject to her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The app ellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

(i) She shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

(ii) She shall attend the police station whenever her presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

(iii) She shall not threaten the witnesses and tamp er with evid ence.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-