Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagarathna vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
Crl.A.No.123/2022
1
M
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.123/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT.NAGARATHNA
W/O KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT D NO.1732
MEDAR BLOCK
PERIYAPATNA TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VENKATESH PRASAD R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY TOWN POLICE STATION
PERIYAPATNA TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. M.N.ADARSHA
S/O M.L.LINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PERIYAPATNA TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S V/O/DT:28.01.2022)
Crl.A.No.123/2022
2
M
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC & ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL. MISC.
NO.2545/2021 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CASE OF HER ARREST IN CONNECTION
WITH CR.NO.331/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 5, 8, 9 OF PROHIBITION OF
EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR
REHABILITATION ACT, 2013 AND SECTION 304 (II) OF IPC
AND SECTION 3(1) (J) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT OF RESPONDENT
NO.1 POLICE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned High Court Government Pleader submits
memo reporting service of notice to respondent No.2.
Service of notice to respondent No.2 held sufficient. He is
unrepresented.
2. Heard.
3. Aggrieved by rejection of her petition for
grant of anticipatory bail, the accused in Crime
No.331/2021 of Periyapatna police station has preferred
the above appeal.
4. On 18.12.2021, respondent No.2 filed the
complaint before Periyapatna police against the appellant
Crl.A.No.123/2022
M
as per Annexure-B alleging that on 17.12.2021 at
7.00 p.m. the appellant had employed scavenger for
manually cleaning her toilet pit and that was reported in
Vartha Bharathi Kannada daily newspaper. By such act,
she has violated Section 6 of the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 ('the Act' for short).
5. On that basis, Periyapatna police registered
first information report as per Annexure-A against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 8
and 9 of the said Act. She was arrested in the said case
and learned Magistrate released her on bail as per the
order Annexure-C dated 19.12.2021.
6. On 20.12.2021, the Investigating Officer
submitted requisition as per Annexure-D to include
Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(j) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST (POA) Act' for short). The
requisition states that during the course of investigation,
on 20.12.2021 he recorded the statement of one Rajesh,
Crl.A.No.123/2022
M
a scavenger deployed to attend manual scavenging. The
statement further revealed that on the requisition of one
Vishwa S/o. Mahadev, himself and one Madhu carried out
manual scavenging work and suffered some health
hazard. As per his statement, after taking treatment, he
recovered and Madhu died in Kamakshipalya Hospital,
Mysuru. On such requisition of the Investigating officer,
Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act were included in the case.
7. The appellant apprehending her arrest in the
said case filed anticipatory bail petition before the trial
Court in Crl.Misc.No.2545/2021. The trial Court by the
impugned order Annexure-E dated 06.01.2022 dismissed
the said petition on the ground that specific overt acts are
attracted to the appellant to attract the provision of
Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 18
and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act bar grant of anticipatory
bail in such cases.
8. As per the Investigating Officer's requisition
itself, victim Rajesh revealed that one Vishwa deployed
Crl.A.No.123/2022
M
him and Madhu for manual scavenging. He does not
speak the role of the appellant. Up to 20.12.2021 the
names of the victims did not find figure in the
investigation records. The death has occurred after three
days of the alleged deployment for manual scavenging.
The copy of the postmortem report made available for the
perusal of this Court does not show any final report. The
appellant was already arrested and interrogated.
Therefore her detention for any further investigation is
not required.
9. Under the circumstances, at this stage, there
is no prima-facie material to show that the appellant had
directly employed the victims for manual scavenging or
monitored the same. Vishwa, who allegedly employed
victim is not arrayed as the accused in this case.
Therefore, at this stage, there is no prima-facie case to
hold that the appellant subjected the victims for
hazardous activities by way of caste discrimination.
Crl.A.No.123/2022
M
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India1 held that when there is no
prima-facie material to show that the act in question was
caste based, Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act
are not applicable. The major offences alleged under
Section 304(II) of IPC is punishable with imprisonment
upto 10 years. The appellant is woman and Anganwadi
worker.
11. Considering all these aspects, it is a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail. Therefore the appeal is allowed.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellant is
granted bail in Crime No.331/2021 of Periyapatna police
station. If the appellant is arrested in the said case she
shall be released on bail subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The appellant shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a
sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnish one surety in
(2020) 4 SCC 727
Crl.A.No.123/2022
M
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court for
her appearance.
(iii) The appellant shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement
or otherwise.
(iv) The appellant shall appear before the
Investigating Officer/Court as and when
required.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
