Jeevithesh K Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11939 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 19 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1353 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Jeevithesh K.Reddy
Aged about 32 years
S/o. Kod and ared dy
R/at No.135/6, 14 t h Cross
Vijaya Bank Colony
Opp. Imp act Destiny Apartment
Horamavu
Beng aluru-560043
                                             ...Appellant
(By Sri K. Nag ab hushana Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1.    State of Karnataka by
      Belland uru Police Station
      Bang alore District
      Represented by S.P.P.
      Hig h Court Build ing
      Bang alore-01.

2.    Ms. Sahana K. Palimar
      Aged about 35 years
      R/at P-3, BSR Sp lendor Park
      Apartment, Vijaya Bank Colony
      Banasawad i
      Bang alore-560043.
                                           ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP for R1;
 Sri Omran Khan, Advocate for R2)
                                   :: 2 ::


     This     Criminal       Appeal       is   filed     under     Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to release the
app ellant    on   b ail    in   CR.     No.91/2022        of    Bellandur
Police   Station,     Beng aluru         for   the     alleged    offences
punishab le    under        Section      354(D),       500,     509,   504,
120B, 364, 365, 406, 420, 354, 339, 340, 349, 350,
352, 499 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc),
3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act which is pending
before CCH-71, City Civil Court, Beng aluru.


     This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:



                             JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under section 14(A)(2)

of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ["SC/ST (POA) Act"

for short], challenging the order dated 7.7.2022

by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru rejecting the appellant's application for

bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR in

Cr.No.91/2022 for the offences punishable under

sections 354(D), 500, 509, 504, 120B, 364, 365,

406, 420, 354, 339, 340, 349, 350, 352, 499 of :: 3 ::

IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc),

3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act. After

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed only

for the offences under sections 406, 417, 420, 504

and 506 r/w section 34 IPC and sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA)

Act.

2. Heard Sri. K.Nagabhushana Reddy,

learned counsel for the appellant, Government

Pleader for respondent no.1 and Sri Omran Khan,

counsel for respondent no.2. The other two

accused have been admitted to bail by this court.

The appellant is accused no.1. It appears that

there was physical relationship with the appellant

and the second respondent and that the appellant

had promised to marry her. The main allegation is

that the appellant declined to marry her coming to

know that she belongs to schedule caste. In this

regard some quarrels are said to have taken place.

:: 4 ::

3. According to the court below, delay in

lodging the FIR cannot be a reason for granting

bail. The materials placed by the prosecution

indicate involvement of the appellant. But this

finding cannot be sustained for the reason that if

really the appellant had intention to commit the

offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act,

he would not have developed friendship with the

second respondent. The materials produced by the

appellant indicate that the appellant and the

mother of the second respondent were together

doing business and there arose some difference in

the business. Whether the appellant had intention

to insult the second respondent or not is a matter

of trial. At this stage such inference is difficult to

be drawn. The materials are insufficient. Anyway

the charge sheet is filed and the presence of the

appellant can be secured before the trial court.

But the learned counsel for second respondent

submits that the appellant has been constantly :: 5 ::

putting threat. If this is the apprehension of the

second respondent, the trial court may consider it

in case any threat is put on the second

respondent. In this view, the impugned order

cannot be sustained. Therefore it is set aside.

Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru dated 07.07.2022 in Cr.No.91/2022 is set aside.

The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

      i.    He     shall        not        tamper          with     the
            evidence             collected             by           the
                            :: 6 ::


           investigating     officer    and     threaten
           the witnesses.

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

iii. Till conclusion of the trial, the appellant shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in 15 days, preferably on Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon.

iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. In case of any FIR is registered against him, the same will be considered for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sd