Smt. N. Arundathi vs State By Yeswanthpur Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 11372 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1212 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.   Smt. N. Arundathi
     D/o M. Narayanappa
     Aged about 52 years

2.   Smt. N. Bharathi
     D/o M. Narayanappa
     Aged about 57 years

     Both are residing at
     No.05, 154 t h Cross
     Sub ed ar Palya
     Yeshwanthp ura
     Bang alore-560022.

     Both are residing at
     No.205C/18, 14 t h Main
     Sub ramanyanag ar
     Beng aluru City-562021.
                                       ...Appellants
(By Sri S. Doreraju, Advocate)

AND:

1.   State by Yeswanthpur Police
     Beng aluru City
     Represented by
     State Pub lic Prosecutor
     Hig h Court of Karnataka
     Hig h Court Build ing
     Bang alore-560001.
                              :: 2 ::


2.   Sri S.V. Lakshmikantha
     S/o Late Venkataramu
     Aged 48 years

3.   Smt. Girijamma @ Girija
     W/o Lakshmikantha
     Aged about 38 years

     Both are residing at
     No.2/5 (Old No.15)
     4 t h A Cross, Sub edarap alya
     Yeshwanthap ura
     Beng aluru-560022

                                            ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai,HCGP for R1;
 R2 and R3 Served-unrepresented)

     This Criminal Ap peal is filed und er Section 14(A)
(2) of SC/ST (POA) act 2015, praying to set aside
order   p assed   by   the   learned   Sessions   Judge   in
Crl.Misc. No.5455/2022 (CCH-71), Bang alore, dated
17.06.2022 for the offences punishab le under section
3(1)(r) of SC/ST(POA) act of Yeshwanthapur police
station in CR.No.170/2022.


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

                       JUDGMENT

Heard Sri S.Doreraju, learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondents 2 :: 3 ::

and 3 have been served with notice, but they have

not appeared before the Court.

2. This appeal is filed under Section

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

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act'

for short), challenging the order dated

17.06.2022, rejecting the appellants' application

for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section

506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act

registered in Crime No.170/2022.

3. The respondents 2 and 3 approached the

Special Court with a complaint under Section 200

of Cr.P.C., on 14.03.2022. The Special Court

referred the complaint to investigation under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and thereby the FIR was

registered on 27.05.2022.

4. If the entire complaint and FIR are

perused, it becomes clear that the appellants and :: 4 ::

the respondents 2 and 3 are neighbors and that a

quarrel might have taken place between them.

The specific allegation is that on 20.06.2021, when

the mother of the second respondent was standing

in front of her house, the appellants threw

garbage in front of the house of respondents 2 and

3 and when the mother of second respondent

questioned, there took place a quarrel and at that

time it is stated that the appellants took the name

of their caste and abused them.

5. Though there is an allegation that the

appellants took the name of the caste, it is to be

mentioned here that in connection with the

incident that is said to have taken place on

20.06.2021, private complaint was lodged on

14.03.2022.

6. It is stated in para 5 of the complaint

that respondents 2 and 3 approached the police,

but the police refused to receive the complaint.

:: 5 ::

On 29.06.2021, they approached the

Commissioner of Police, but he also refused to

receive the complaint. It is not understandable as

to why they waited till 14.03.2022 to approach the

court with a private complaint, when the

Commissioner of Police refused to receive the

complaint on 29.06.2021,. Delay certainly

matters. Moreover the appellants and respondents

2 and 3 are neighbors. They have been residing in

the same locality for quite a long time. Therefore

the allegation concerning the caste of respondents

2 and 3 is a matter of investigation. The

appellants' counsel has also filed a photo which

shows that in connection with a gathering, the

respondents 2 and 3 and the appellants are seen

together. Therefore the allegation of abusing

respondents 2 and 3 and their mother taking the

name of their caste is to be proved before the

court. Prima-facie materials for invoking bar

under Section 18 of the Act is not forthcoming.

:: 6 ::

The court below could have granted anticipatory

bail to the appellants in these circumstances.

Therefore appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence

the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed .

The ord er d ated 17.06.2022 p assed in Crl.Misc.5455/2022 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.

In the event of arrest of the app ellants by the respond ent police in connection with Crime No.170/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The app ellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

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

:: 7 ::

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

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

(iv) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in a fortnight p referably on a Sund ay between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till completion of the investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-