Harish vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1203 Kant

                                     Crl.A.No.1396/2021
                            1
                                                      M




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1396/2021
BETWEEN:

HARISH
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.539/1, 2ND CROSS
SRI SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD
MUTHYALANAGAR, JALAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 054                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY JALAHALLI POLICE STATION
       REPRESENTED BY SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BENGALURU - 560 001

2.     LEELAVATHI T
       W/O HARISH
       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
       R/AT NO.539/1, 2ND CROSS
       SRI SAIBABA TEMPLE ROAD
       MUTHYALANAGAR, JALAHALLI
       BENGALURU - 560 054             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHANKAR H S, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI KAMALUDDIN AHMAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF THE SC & ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO RELEASE THE
APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.38/2021 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE
                                                     Crl.A.No.1396/2021
                                 2
                                                                     M




STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT
AND SECTIONS 498A, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-71).

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the rejection of his anticipatory

bail petition, accused No.1 in Crime No.38/2021 of

Jalahalli police station has preferred the above appeal.

3. Accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime No.38/2021 are

the parents and siblings of the appellant. Accused No.7 is

said to be paramour of the appellant. The marriage of the

appellant and respondent No.2 was solemnized on

15.10.2015. That was a love marriage. Out of the said

wedlock, couple had a son aged five years. Respondent

No.2 belonged to the scheduled caste.

4. Respondent No.2 filed complaint on

09.04.2021 before Jalahalli police. Gist of the complaint is

as follows:

Crl.A.No.1396/2021

M

That since the time of marriage, the appellant

subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and that was

supported by other accused. The appellant was wayward

without any work, he used to consume alcohol in the

house and assault her with beer bottle, abuse her in filthy

language with reference to caste and humiliate her. He

was insisting that she should leave him and go away. The

appellant developed illicit relationship with accused No.7.

When that was questioned by her, on 04.04.2021, he

assaulted her with beer bottle and club, burnt her with

cigarette, abused her in foul language with reference to

caste. She took treatment in K.C.General Hospital and

later filed the complaint. Therefore there is delay in filing

the complaint.

5. On the basis of such complaint, respondent

No.1 registered the case in Crime No.38/2021 for the

offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short)

and Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Crl.A.No.1396/2021

M

6. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant filed

anticipatory bail petition in Cri.Misc.No.4124/2021. The

trial Court by the impugned order rejected the

anticipatory bail petition of the appellant on the ground

that there is prima-facie case of offences alleged against

him and Section 18A of the Act bars grant of anticipatory

bail.

7. Sri Siji Malayil, learned Counsel for the

appellant submits that the matter is purely matrimonial

dispute. He further submits that the alleged caste

discrimination was done within four walls of the house,

therefore Section 3 of the Act is not attracted. He submits

that though anticipatory bail is granted to accused Nos.4

and 6 trial Court, unjustly rejected the bail petition of the

appellant.

8. Learned HCGP and learned Counsel for

respondent No.2 oppose the bail petition on the ground

that the appellant is facing serious allegations and there

is sufficient material to show the overt acts of the

appellant. They further submit that the appellant is Crl.A.No.1396/2021

M

already facing trial in S.C.No.382/2018 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with

Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. Suppressing that fact, he filed

anticipatory bail petition.

9. It is further contended that the appellant has

threatened respondent No.2 and her family members and

already in that regard the complaint is registered against

him in NCR No.315/2021 before Banaswadi Police.

10. In considering the application for grant of

anticipatory bail, the appellant has to satisfy the following

factors:

(i) That there is apprehension of arrest on the

allegations of non bailable offences;

(ii) There are no reasonable grounds to believe

that he has committed the offences alleged against him;

(iii) He will not tamper the witnesses, if

anticipatory bail is granted and cooperate with

investigation/trial;

(iv) He has no criminal antecedents.

Crl.A.No.1396/2021

M

11. There is no dispute that respondent police are

trying to arrest the appellant on the allegation of

commission of non-bailable offences. So far as prima facie

case, the appellant also does not dispute that he married

on 15.10.2015.

12. Respondent No.2 has produced copies of the

medical records and photographs. The said records show

that respondent No.2 was treated at Bowring and Lady

Curzon Hospital on 07.04.2021 with history of assault on

05.04.2021 at 11.30 p.m. and she has suffered eight

injuries. The photographs produced by her show that the

injuries were found on her body.

13. The records produced by respondent No.2

show that prior to marriage, the appellant was married to

one Hemalatha on 20.02.2014. She committed suicide on

21.08.2014. On the complaint of father of Hemalatha

Crime No.278/2014 was registered for the offences

punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with Section Crl.A.No.1396/2021

M

34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961.

14. In that case on filing charge sheet appellant is

facing trial in S.C.No.382/2018. The allegations in that

case are that he subjected Hemalatha to physical and

mental cruelty in connection with his demand for dowry

and abused her in foul language, therefore, she

committed suicide.

15. When that matter was pending, the appellant

married respondent No.2. He makes false declaration in

para 33 of the petition that he is not involved in other

cases. Such statement itself disentitles him to

anticipatory bail which is equitable relief. Further, the

records produced by respondent No.2 show that on the

complaint of brother of respondent No.2, Banaswadi

police have registered NCR case alleging that the

appellant criminally intimidated him and his family

members over phone for filing the complaint.

16. Under the circumstances, if anticipatory bail is

granted, the appellant is likely to threaten the witnesses Crl.A.No.1396/2021

M

and hamper the investigation. Therefore this Court does

not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Therefore the appeal is dismissed.

The above observation are limited for purpose of

disposal of this appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE KSR