Karnataka High Court
Arunkumar C vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
1
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ARUNKUMAR C,
S/O CHANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
2. PUTARAJU C
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
CHIKKANAHALLI HANABE VILLAGE
AND POST, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.K.A.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE
STATION,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DIST-560 001.
2
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
2. SMT.GOWRAMMA
W/O SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OPPOSITE TO JALAPPA COLLEGE
KAVERI EXTENSION
BEHIND SIDDAGANGA RICE MILL
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DIST-561 203.
... RESPONDENTS
9BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBE
(POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
31.12.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.2035/21 BY THE II
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT AND GRANT THEM ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT
OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.158/21 OF
BODDABELAVANGALA P.S.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the rejection of their application for
anticipatory bail, accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.158/21
of Doddabelavangala Police Station have preferred the
above appeal. The said case is registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 504 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(r) (s) and (w) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), on the basis of
the complaint of one 'x' (for the purpose of confidentiality,
the victim is referred to as 'x' henceforth).
2. The gist of the complaint of 'x' is as follows:
Herself and her family had taken the house of the
appellants on lease for a term of 3 years on payment of
Rs.4.00 lakhs. The accused demanded and received
another sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The accused, without
returning the said amount, were dodging the matter. On
17.11.2021 in the morning, in the house of the accused
when she demanded the repayment of the amount,
accused abused her in foul language with reference to her
caste. The 2nd accused assaulted her with a sickle; both of
them kicked her on her chest and stomach and tried to
disrobe her.
3. The appellants apprehending their arrest in the
said case, filed Crl. Misc.2035/2021 before the Trial Court
for anticipatory bail. The Trial Court rejected the
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
application on the ground that Sections 18 and 18(A) of
the Act bar granting of anticipatory bail.
4. Sections 18 and 18(A) of the said Act bar
granting of anticipatory bail, provided, prima facie the
offences under the said Act are made out. This view is
supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in PRITHVI RAJ CHAUHAN .v. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS1 and RAHANA JALAL .v. STATE OF KERALA
AND ANOTHER2. Therefore, this Court has to see whether
the alleged acts of the appellants were the outcome of
caste based discrimination.
5. There is a delay of more than 20 days in filing the
complaint. The complaint itself shows that the alleged
incident was the outcome of the commercial transaction
between the appellants and the victim. She herself states
that she was living in the house of the appellants since 3
(2020) 4 SCC 727
(2021) 1 SCC 733
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
years. There were no allegations of caste based
discrimination earlier.
6. Learned HCGP submitted the case diary for the
perusal of this Court. The wound certificate indicates that
soon after the incident, the victim was examined by the
doctor on 17.11.2021 at 3.05 p.m. In the complaint, the
exact time of the offence is not mentioned. The time of
the offence is interpolated as 11.30 to 12.00 p.m. The
history is given as follows:
'Assault by Arunkumar by hand.'
The history of the 2nd appellant wielding sickle or caste
bias not revealed. The second appellant is not shown as
the assailant in the wound certificate.
7. The statement of the victim was recorded on
17.12.2021 i.e. after more than one month. Though in the
complaint and her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., the victim makes allegations of the appellants
kicking her on her chest and stomach, the wound
certificate does not reflect any injury on the said parts.
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
8. According to the appellants, the complaint is a
counter blast for their demand to vacate the house. Under
the circumstances, at this stage, there is no prima facie
case of caste based assault or abuse. Therefore, there is
no prima facie case to apply Sections 18 and 18A of the
Act.
9. The major offence is under Section 354, IPC which
carries maximum imprisonment of 5 years. Under the
aforesaid circumstances, it is a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail.
10. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. Appellants are granted anticipatory bail
in Crime No.158/2021 of Doddabelavangala Police Station.
If they are arrested in the said case, they shall be released
subject to the following conditions:
(i) Appellants shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of
this order;
CRL.A.No. 42/2022
(ii) Appellants shall execute personal bond in a
sum of Rs.25,000/- each and furnish one surety in the
likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer/Court;
(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating
Officer/Court as and when required for the purpose of
investigation/trial;
(iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise.
Sd/-
JUDGE
vgh*
