Karnataka High Court
Lakshmana. B vs The State By Hulimavu P. S on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1008 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. LAKSHMANA B.,
S/O. CHIKKABAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2. RAMAMANI K.,
W/O. LAKSHMANA @ LAKSHMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.230, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BASAVANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 083,
ALSO RESIDING AT NO.58,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, NEAR BBMP OFFICE,
BASAVANAPURA, GOTTIGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 083.
3. SHOBARANI,
W/O. B. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.230/81,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, NEAR BBMP OFFICE,
BASAVANAPURA, GOTTIGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 083. ... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE]
AND
1. THE STATE BY HULIMAVU P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEEPA C.,
D/O. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.63, CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP., FOR R.1/STATE;
R.2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 30.05.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5069/2022 PASSED BY THE
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU, AND ALLOW THE SAME BY DIRECTING
THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.135/2022
REGISTERED BY THE HULIMAVU P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354, 504 READ WITH 34 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r),(s),(w) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, ON
THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Respondent No.2 is served but there is no
representation.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for
appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader
for the State.
respectively in Crime No.135/2022 of Hulimavu Police
Station, registered for offences punishable under Section
504, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act, for short).
4. The appellants preferred a petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Court in
Criminal Misc.No.5069/2022 praying to release them on
anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions
Court on 30.05.2022. Hence, this appeal.
5. The complaint is lodged by one Deepa C., on
18.05.2022 in respect of an incident which is alleged to
have taken place on 15.05.2022 at about 1.00 p.m. It is
stated in the complaint that, she is 5 months pregnant
and she had come to her mother's house along with her
children. When her children were playing near their
house, accused scolded and assaulted them and the
matter was informed to her by her children. When she
went near the gate to enquire, accused Nos.1 to 3 came
near the gate and when she asked them as to why they
have scolded her children, they abused as "¤ÃAiÀĪÀÄä ªÀiÁ¯ï
eÁw zÉAUÀ" "®AdªÀÄÄAqÀ", and pulled her hair and once again
abused her in filthy language insulting her caste.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants would contend that the appellants are
innocent and a false case has been foisted against them.
He submits that there is a civil dispute between parties
and even on an earlier occasion a false case was filed by
the complainant's brother against the family members of
the appellants which ended in a 'B' Report. He contends
that an omnibus allegations are made that all the
accused have abused the complainant and it is not
specifically stated as to who abused the complainant
insulting his caste etc. He further submits that there is
an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which has
been made use by the appellants to falsely implicate
these appellants at the instance of her brother and other
family members. He submits that there are no criminal
antecedents against the appellants and they are ready to
abide by any conditions. Accordingly, seeks to allow the
appeal.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that a plain reading of the complaint clearly
show that the appellants have abused the complainant in
a filthy language referring to her caste in public view and
therefore in view of Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST (POA)
Act there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail. He contends
that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and the
statement of complainant is also recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. He therefore, seeks to reject the appeal.
8. As per complaint averments, the appellants
abused and assaulted the complainant's children while
they were playing near their house and therefore, the
complainant went to enquire with them and at that time,
complainant was abused by the appellants in filthy
language insulting her caste etc. Though it is alleged that
the complainant was abused by the appellants, it is not
specifically stated as to who abused her. On the other
hand, an omnibus allegations are made. It is difficult to
accept at this stage that all the accused together uttered
the same words and abused the complainant taking the
name of her caste. It is also relevant to see that in the
complaint itself it is stated that on the very same day
complainant's brother called the office of the Police
Commissioner and the police came and enquired about
the incident. However, the complaint is lodged after
three days i.e., on 18.05.2022. It is stated in the
complaint that after discussing with the family members,
the complaint was lodged.
9. The learned counsel for appellant has made
available the copies of 'B' report filed by the police in
respect of a complaint lodged by one Sri. Ragavendra
stated to be the complainant's brother. Further, a copy
of the plaint said to have been filed by the family
members of the appellants against complainant's brother
and her father in O.S. No.1294/2018, on the file the
Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, at Bengaluru, is also produced.
10. The fact narrated in the complaint does not
give an indication that the incident has taken place only
on the ground that the complainant belongs to Scheduled
Caste. In Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand
and another reported in (2020)10 SCC 710, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that all insults or
intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the
Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the
victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, it cannot be
said that there is a prima case made out against the
appellants for offence punishable under the SC/ST (POA)
Act. However, it is for the prosecution to establish its
case against the appellants in due course. Hence, the
following
ORDER
The order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Special
Judge at Bengaluru in Crl.Misc No.5069/2022 is set
aside.
The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to
be released in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.135/2022 of Hulimavu Police Station, subject to
following conditions:
i. Appellants shall appear before the
investigation officer within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and shall execute a bond in a sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
each, with two sureties for likesum.
ii. Appellants shall cooperate with
the investigation of the case and make
themselves available for investigation,
whenever required.
iii. Appellants shall furnish proof of
their residential address and shall inform the
Investigating Officer/Court, if there is any
change in the address.
iv. Appellants shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence/witnesses in any
manner.
v. Appellants shall be regular in
attending the Court proceedings.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB/-
