Smt Veena Jayakumar @ Meenakshi ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1269 Kant

                                   Crl.A.No.1841/2021

                             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.1841/2021

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT.VEENA JAYAKUMAR
       @ MEENAKSHI JAYAKUMAR
       W/O JAYAKUMARA
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
       R/AT NEAR VEERAMMA MATA
       KILARIPETE, HOSAKOTE TOWN
       BENGALURU - 562 114

2.     SRI MANOHARA H.V.
       S/O VIJAYAKUMARA
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
       R/AT MARKET ROAD
       NEAR NAGARESHWARA TEMPLE
       KUMBARAPET, HOSAKOTE TOWN
       BENGALURU - 562 114

3.     SRI KRISHNA R
       S/O RAMESH
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
       R/AT DARJIPETE
       HOSAKOTE TOWN
       BENGALURU - 562 114              ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY HOSAKOTE POLICE
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       BENGALURU - 560 001
                                           Crl.A.No.1841/2021

                              2
                                                                M




2.    SRI GOVINDARAJU K.
      S/O KRISHNAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
      R/AT KILARIPET
      HOSAKOTE TOWN
      BENGALURU - 562 114                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHANKAR H S, HCGP FOR R1;
    SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S V/O/DATED 28.01.2022)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC & ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CRIME NO.129/2021 OF HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
323, 324, 427, 448, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, NOW PENDING ON
THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

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

                     JUDGMENT

Learned HCGP submits memo with the report of the

Investigating Officer regarding service of notice to

respondent No.2. Service on respondent No.2 is held

sufficient. He is unrepresented.

2. Heard.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of their application

for anticipatory bail, accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 in Crime

No.129/2021 of Hoskote Police station which is now Crl.A.No.1841/2021

M

pending in Special C.C.No.601/2021 on the file of II

Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru have preferred the

above appeal.

4. Crime No.129/2021 was initially registered

against the named accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7-8 unnamed

accused persons for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 504

read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)

and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 on

the basis of the complaint of respondent No.2.

5. It was alleged that on 28.03.2021 at 10.30

p.m. accused all of a sudden broke open the gate and

door of complainant's house at Hoskote Town, trespassed

into the house, abused him with reference to his caste,

assaulted him with club on his face, shoulder and caused

him grievous injuries. He allegedly escaped from the

hands of accused and later came back to his house.

Crl.A.No.1841/2021

M

6. There is a delay of two days in filing the

complaint. None of the offences alleged against the

accused are punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. The charge sheet is already filed. Except for the trial

detention of the appellants are not required for any other

purpose.

7. Though there are allegations against accused

No.4 assaulting the victim with clubs, as per medical

certificate the injuries suffered by respondent No.2 are

simple in nature. The allegation of abusing respondent

No.2 with reference to caste are general. No specific

allegations in that regard are made against accused No.4.

8. As per the complaint itself the incident

allegedly took place in the background of respondent No.2

video graphing accused No.1 a woman in his cell phone.

Therefore at this stage there are no grounds to believe

that the incident was an outcome of caste based

discrimination.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.11 of

the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India Crl.A.No.1841/2021

M

reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 held that if the complaint

does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of

the provisions of Act, 1989, the bar created by Section 18

and 18A(1) shall not apply. This case is also covered by

the said judgment. Therefore, the trial Court was not

justified in rejecting the application on the ground of bar

of Section 18 of the Act. The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order is hereby set aside. The

appellants are granted bail in Crime No.129/2021 on the

file of Hoskote Police Station which is now pending in

Special CC No.601/2021 on the file of II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

Bengaluru. If they are arrested in the said case, they

shall be released on bail, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) The appellants shall appear before the trial Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment;

(ii) The appellants shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and furnish one surety in the like sum to Crl.A.No.1841/2021

M

the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance;

(iii) The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner; &

(iv) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

Sd/-

JUDGE KSR