Sri. Santhosh vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12630 Kant

                                1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                            BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1605 OF 2022

BETWEEN:


1.      SRI. SANTHOSH
        S/O SRI. SURESH B.S
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

2.      SMT. PUSHPALATHA
        W/O SRI. SANTHOSH S
        AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

        BOTH ARE R/AT RATNAPURI VILLAGE,
        BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
        MYSURU DISTRICT 577 201
                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT

REP BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560 001.

2. SMT. SURYAKALA P
W/O SRI. SANDEEP S
R/AT NO. 1302, E AND F BLOCK,
14th CROSS, 4th MAIN,
RAMAKRISHNANAGARA,
MYSURU 570 022.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI KESHAV M. DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 2

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA)

CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1701/2022

PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT

MYSURU AGAINST THE APPELLANTS HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY

DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE AND I.O TO ENLARGE THE

APPELLANTS ON BAIL AND RELEASE IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST

IN CR.NO.225/2022 OF HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION HUNSUR

FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.354.504.506.114 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND

SEC.3(1)(w)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.67-A OF IT

ACT, 2008.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for short, the S.C. & S.T. Act). The appellants are accused

Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No.225/2022 registered by the first

respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections

354, 504, 506, 114 IPC, Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) (i),(ii)

of S.C. & S.T. Act and Section 67(A) of the Information

Technology Act, 2008 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants

have challenged the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the VI

Addl. District & Special Judge, Mysuru rejecting the appellants'

application for anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Sri. Shashidhar, learned counsel for the

appellants, Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 and Sri. Keshav M. Datar, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

3. I have perused the impugned Judgment and the

objections filed by learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. On 03.08.2022, the second respondent made a

report to the police that she was subjected to humiliation and

insultation in the name of her caste by the accused. Her report

discloses that she married the brother of the first appellant.

Theirs was an inter-caste marriage. According to the second

respondent, the first incident took place on 05.04.2022 and at

that time, she was insulted in the name of her caste. Again on

06.04.2022, when she was cooking food, the gas cylinder caught

fire because accused No.3 had opened the connecting pipe. She

has stated that her husband came and rescued her. Another

allegation is that on 07.04.2022, when second respondent was

taking bath, the first appellant was videographing stealthily and

thereafter he threatened to disclose the video recording to

others and then abused her in the name of her caste. She has

also further stated that for the last seven years, she was being

subjected to insultation by all the accused.

5. The Court below has rejected the application filed by

giving reasons that the materials clearly disclose that respondent

No.2 was subjected to humiliation and insultation in the name of

her caste and thereby Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. Act could be

invoked for rejecting anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that

the complaint is bereft of truth. If really second respondent was

being subjected to humiliation and insultation just because she

belongs to scheduled caste, nothing prevented her from

approaching the police at the earliest point of time. According to

her compliant, the first incident took place on 05.04.2022. But

FIR was registered on 03.08.2022. There is no explanation for

the delay. He also referred to photographs to argue that the

accused never had any intention to insult the second

respondent. The argument is that the photographs very well

disclose that all the family members including second respondent

participated in a birthday celebration. This itself would falsify the

case of the respondent. There is a property dispute which was

the reason for a false complaint to be lodged. All the four

accused applied for anticipatory bail. The Court below granted

anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 2 and 3 against whom same

allegations have been made. If the Court below could find good

ground to grant anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 and 3, it could

have granted anticipatory bail to the appellants herein as well.

This only shows that the Trial Court has not applied its mind.

7. Sri. Keshav M. Datar referring to his statement of

objections would argue that it is a clear case of humiliating a

woman belonging to scheduled caste. The complaint discloses

that the second respondent was being subjected to insultation

continuously. The C.D. produced along with the objections

clearly discloses the abusive words used by the accused against

second respondent. In this view, the Court below is justified in

declining anticipatory bail.

8. I have perused the entire materials. Accused No.1 is

the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and husband of accused No.4.

Accused No.1 is the brother of second respondent's husband.

The photographs produced along with appeal memo clearly

disclose that there was a gathering of all the members of the

family at the time of birthday celebration. Though the

photograph was taken on 20.10.2016, it has got relevancy in the

sense that the allegations found in the complaint that second

respondent was a subject matter of insultation for more than

seven years, is difficult to be believed. It is not understandable

as to why second respondent did not think of approaching the

police immediately after 05.04.2022 if clearly any incident had

taken place as alleged. I have watched the video recording found

in the C.D. produced along with statement of objections. It does

not contain any abusive words being used by the appellants or

the other accused.

9. For the above reasons, I do not find a prima facie

case to come to the conclusion that an offence under Section 18

of the S.C. and S.T. Act can be applied for denying anticipatory

bail. Further, if the Court below came to conclusion that other

two accused were entitled to anticipatory bail, it is not

understandable as to how these appellants were denied

anticipatory bail against whom same allegations are there.

10. It is the argument of Sri. Keshav M. Datar that

second respondent approached police on 28.04.2022 and on

subsequent occasions. But because the police did not register

FIR, she approached the Hon'ble Chief Minister and on the

directions issued by the Hon'ble Chief Minister to the concerned

police station, FIR was registered thereafter. Even if this

submission is taken to be true, still, I do not find a case coming

under the provisions of S.C. and S.T. Act. Therefore, appeal

deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order is set aside.

The appellants are admitted to anticipatory bail. In the

event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.225/2022

registered by the respondent Police Station, they shall be

released on bail by obtaining from them, a bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. They are subjected to

the following conditions:

(i) They shall co-operate with Investigating Officer for

completing the investigation;

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer

whenever their presence is necessary for the purpose of

investigation;

(iii) They shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses and

tamper with the evidence.

Sd/-

JUDGE sac*