Smt. Munivenkatamma vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11873 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
                             NO . 1484 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Smt. Munivenkatamma
Aged about 64 years
W/o Apalappa, 64 years
D/o Munishamappa
R/at Ramapura Village
Kasaba Hobli
Bangarpet Taluk -563 114
Kolar District
                                                 ...Appellant
(By Sri G. Udhaya Kumar, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Reptd. By Sub-Inspector of Police
       Bangarpet Police Station
       Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District
       Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
       Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
       Bangalore-560001

2.     Sri V. Raghu
       Aged 45 years
       Police Inspector
       Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate
       Zilla Adalitha Bhavana,
       Kolar - 563 101
                                              ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
    Sri C. Jagadeesh, Advocate for R2)
                            :: 2 ::


     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of
SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to
set aside the order passed by the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge at Kolar in Crl.Misc.No.442/2022 dated
22.06.2022 rejecting the petition seeking anticipatory bail
and enlarge the appellant on the bail in the event of her
arrest in CR.No.74/2022 of Bangarpet Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471,
198, 420 of IPC, Section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST Act and
Sections 5(A) and 5(B) of the Karnataka SC/ST and other
B.C. (Reservation of Appointment) Act, 1990 and etc,.

     This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this
day, the Court delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Udhaya Kumar G, learned counsel for

the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1-State and Sri C.Jagadeesh, learned

counsel for Respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST Act' for short],

questioning the correctness of the order dated :: 3 ::

22.06.2022 passed by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.Misc.No.442/2022.

3. In connection with Crime No.74/2022,

registered by the first respondent police for the

offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471,

198 and 420 of IPC, Section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST Act

and Sections 5(A) and 5(B) of the Karnataka SC/ST and

other B.C. (Reservation of Appointment) Act, 1990, the

appellant applied for anticipatory bail. The same was

rejected. Hence this appeal.

4. The prosecution case is that the appellant

obtained caste certificate to the effect that she

belonged to 'Nayaka' caste for the purpose of

contesting election although her real caste was

'Ganiga'. The District Caste Verification Committee

appears to have canceled the caste certificate issued to

the appellant. In this back ground the FIR came to be

registered.

:: 4 ::

5. The appellant is a woman aged 64 years.

The caste certificate is produced showing her caste is

mentioned as 'Nayaka'. The appellant has also

produced some other documents like mahazar

conducted by the Revenue Inspector in the presence of

villagers on the direction of the Tahsildar. The villagers

are said to have given statement that the appellant

belongs to 'Nayaka' caste.

6. Whatever may be the factual aspects, in a

case like this, invocation of the offence under Section

3(1)(q) of SC/ST Act does not appear to be correct, in

view of my findings in Crl.A.No.1361/2021. If at all the

appellant has obtained false caste certificate to contest

the elections under reserved category, she can be

prosecuted for the offences under the Indian Penal

Code. Taking into consideration all these aspects and

that the appellant is a old aged woman, anticipatory

bail should have been granted by the court below.

Hence the following:

:: 5 ::

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 22.06.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.442/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, is set aside. Application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.74/2022, she shall be released on bail subject to her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

(i) She shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

(ii) She shall attend the police station whenever her presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

:: 6 ::

(iii) She shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with evidence.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-