Karnataka High Court

Ramesha K E vs State Of Karnataka on 23 May, 2022

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.817 OF 2022

BETWEEN

RAMESHA K.E.
S/O EREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KADEHEMMIGE VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R. PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 423.               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHIVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE (PH))

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY KIKKERI POLICE,
      K.R. PETE TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT
      REP. BY SPP,
      HIGH COURT BUILDING,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    ANUSUYA
      W/O VENKATESHA B.V,
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      R/AT BOLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
      KIKKERI HOBLI,
      K.R. PETE TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 423.         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1 (PH);
     R2 - SERVED )
                                   2




      THIS    CRIMINAL   APPEAL       IS   FILED   UNDER   SECTION
U/S.14(A)(2) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RELEASE THE APPELLANT
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.73/2022 BY
THE RESPONDENT KIKKERI POLICE, K.R. PETE, MANDYA FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 506, 354B OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1)(r)(s),(w) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the accused in Cr. No.73/2022

registered at Kikkeri Police Station, Mandya.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State and

perused the material on record.

3. The defacto complainant/ respondent No.2 has been

served on 12.05.2022, as stated by the learned HCGP. The

memo to the said effect has been filed. However, there is no

representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. The respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint before

the Kikkeri Police Station against the appellant alleging offences

punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 354(B) of IPC, 1860

and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) of the SC and ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (SC and ST

(POA) Act, for short).

5. Apprehending arrest, the appellant approached the

learned Sessions Judge under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking

anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated

22.04.2022 in Crl. Misc. No.348/2022, rejected the said petition.

Hence, this appeal.

6. It is alleged that on 05.04.2022 at about 4.30 p.m

when the first informant was returning to her house along with

her husband after attending the meeting at Anegola Grama

Panchayath and when she had reached near Bolamaranahalli, the

appellant came on a motor cycle and wrongfully restrained her

and her husband from proceeding further. He abused her in filthy

language insulting her caste, caught hold of her cloth, pushed

her and outraged her modesty. While going away, he gave life

threat to her etc.

7. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that

the entire allegations are false and it is a concocted story. He has

contended that the first informant is the President of Anagola

Grama Panchayath, K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya. There was a

meeting convened to discuss about fixing the date and time of

the election to the post of Vice President. The first informant was

intending to see that the appellant does not contest for the

election and with an ulterior motive filed a false complaint

against the appellant. He contended that now the election has

been held. The first informant has been successful in preventing

the appellant from contesting the election for the post of Vice

President by lodging a false complaint. He further contends that

even if the entire allegations are accepted, there is no prima

facie case to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged.

Therefore, contends the findings recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge for rejecting the petition filed under Section 438

of Cr.P.C is not proper. Accordingly, seeks to allow the appeal.

8. Learned HCGP contends that eventhough there are

no specific allegations in the FIR regarding abusive words used

against the complainant insulting her caste, but in the statement

of the complaint recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, she has

clearly mentioned about the abusive words used by the appellant

insulting her caste etc., He therefore, contends that in view of

the bar created under Section 18 and 18A of the SC and ST

(POA) Act, the learned Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the

prayer of the appellant. He therefore seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

9. The incident is alleged to have taken place on

05.04.2022 between 2.30 p.m and 4.30 p.m. The complaint is

lodged on 07.04.2022 at about 6.00 p.m. It is not in dispute that

the complainant is the President of Anegola Grama Panchayath,

K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya. From the material on record it appears

that there was some dispute in the said Anegola Grama

Panchayath with regard to the interference of the husband of the

complainant. In this connection a meeting was held on

05.04.2022. Thereafter, on 07.04.2022 in pursuance of the order

of the Deputy commissioner, meeting notice was issued to hold

the election to the post of Vice President. On the very same day,

the complaint came to be lodged at about 4.00 p.m. alleging that

on 05.04.2022 at about 2.30 p.m. the appellant, a member of

the Grama Panchayath, due to previous enmity abused the

complainant in front of other members and that, while she was

returning to her house, at about 4.30 p.m, along with her

husband, the appellant followed them on a motor cycle and

wrongfully restrained and abused her in filthy language etc.,

10. It is relevant to see that in respect of the very same

incident, a complaint has been lodged by the wife of the

appellant herein against the complainant, her husband and one

Rakshith and a case has been registered in Cr. No.74/2022 for

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354(B), 504,

506, 114 r/w 34 of IPC. Perusal of the complaint lodged by

respondent No.2 herein against the appellant does not disclose

that the appellant has abused her touching the name of her

caste etc., The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is

recorded on 18.04.2022, wherein she has made certain

allegations that the appellant has abused her taking the name of

her caste etc., the same has to be established during trial.

11. Taking into consideration the first information report

and also the background of the dispute between the parties and

also considering the counter complaint lodged against the

respondent No.2 and others, it cannot be said that there is a

prima facie case against the appellant that attracts the provisions

of SC and ST (POA) Act. In that view of the matter, the reasons

assigned by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the prayer of

appellant seeking anticipatory bail is liable to be set aside.

Hence, the following,

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Court of V Addl

Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. Misc. No. 348/2022 is set aside.

Appellant/accused in Crime No.73/2022 of Kikkeri Police

Station shall be released in the event of his arrest, subject to

following conditions:

i) Appellant 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 personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for like-sum.