Gopal Atmaram Naidu vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12042 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100386 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

GOPAL ATMARAM NAIDU
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. 139, HOSAGADDE,
SHETGERI, TQ. ANKOLA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA - 581353.

                                            ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      (ANKOLA POLICE STATION),
      R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH,
      DHARWAD 580011.


2.    SMT. MANJULA GOPAL NAIDU
      W/O. GOPAL ATMARAM NAIDU,
      AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O. NAGINKERI, MALGI,
      TQ. MUNDGOD,
      DIST. UTTARA KANNADA - 581346.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. S. P. KANDAGAL, ADV. FOR R2)
                                  -2-




                                         CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022



       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A OF SC/ST
(PREVENTION      OF   ATROCITIES)        AMENDMENT      ACT,      2015
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CRL.MISC.
CASE NO.235/2022, DATED 06.06.2022, ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL      DISTRICT    AND        SESSIONS   JDUGE,    UTTARA
KANNADA,      KARWAR AND CONSEQUENTLY              DIRECTION BE
ISSUED TO THE ANKOLA POLICE STATION TO ENLARGE THE
PRESENT       APPELLANT/    ACCUSED        NO.3    ON      BAIL     IN
CONNECTION WITH ANKOLA P.S. CRIME NO. 41/2021, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 498A,
504, 506 R/W       SEC. 34 OF          IPC AND UNDER SECTION
3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT.

       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by accused No.1

challenging the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in

Criminal Miscellaneous No.235/2022 by the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara

Kannada, Karwar whereunder the petition filed by

the appellant/accused No.1 under Section 438 of

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking

anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.41/2021 of

Ankola Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as

the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections

3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST

(POA) Act', for brevity), came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one

Smt. Manjula W/o. Gopal Naidu has filed the

complaint stating that her marriage was performed

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

with the appellant/accused No.1 on 31.08.2014

and after her marriage she went to the house of

her husband situated at Hosagadde village. It is

further stated that on the first day itself her

mother-in-law by name Baby has started ill

treating her and behaved in a rude manner and

thereafter they were not eating food prepared by

her and throwing it in gutters and make her to go

to starvation. After her husband leaving the

house, her in-laws were abusing her by taking her

caste and ill treating her stating that she has to

hear them and even assaulted her on difference

occasions. They were torturing her by making

false allegations against her to her husband. It is

further stated that after one month after

completing Ashadha Masa she returned to her

husband's house and when she entered the house

her mother-in-law, father-in-law once again

started ill treating her and provoking her husband

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

to assault her for which she had taken treatment

at Government Hospital, Kodligate. It is further

stated that as the ill treatment was severe she did

not sustain and she left the home of her husband

in the month of February - 2015. It is further

stated that on 15.06.2015 she has left to Dharwad

to complete her Ph.D. course and she stayed in a

hostel at Dharwad. Her in-laws have blocked the

mobile number of her husband. In the month of

July-2015 she returned to Bangaluru, by that time

her husband and family members left the house

without intimating her. It is further stated that

during June-2018 she called her husband on

mobile phone, she came to know that her husband

is in Dubai. It is further stated that she recently

noticed that her husband found with another lady

and on her hand she has a tattoo written as

Ananya-Gopal. The said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.22/2021 of Mundgod Police

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

Station for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 498A, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The said complaint subsequently transferred to

Ankola Police Station which came to be registered

in Crime No.41/2021 for the aforesaid offences.

Ankola Police after the investigation filed the

charge sheet against the appellant and three

others for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 35 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(va) of the SC and ST

(POA) Act. The appellant/accused No.1

apprehending his arrest filed Criminal

Miscellaneous No.235/2022 seeking anticipatory

bail and the same came to be rejected by the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara

Kannada, Karwar by order dated 06.07.2022.

Therefore, the appellant/accused No.1 has

challenged the said order in the instant appeal.

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that the marriage of this

appellant/accused No.1 with the victim lady-

complainant has been performed by the family

members on 31.08.2014. It is his further

submission that even though there is a love affair

between this appellant and the complainant, the

family members agreed and performed their

marriage and it is a arranged marriage. It is his

further submission that all the averments narrated

in the complaint are alleged to have taken place

prior to July-2015. The victim lady-complainant is

not residing with the appellant/accused No.1 since

July-2015. It is his further submission that there

is no allegation in the complaint and also in the

statement of the complainant recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that this appellant/accused

No.1 abused her touching her caste. The said

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

allegation is only against accused Nos.2 to 4. It is

his further submission that there is no allegation

against this appellant/accused No.1 attracting the

provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act. When there is

no prima facie case against the appellant, the bar

contained under Section 18 of the SC and ST (POA)

Act is not attracted. The other offense alleged

against this appellant are not punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. Without

considering all these aspects the learned Sessions

Judge has passed the impugned order which

requires interference by this Court. With this, he

prayed to allow the appeal.

    5.     Per      contra,          learned       High          Court

Government Pleader for               respondent No.1            would

contend that on perusal of the entire charge sheet

material there is a prima facie case against the

appellant/accused No.1 for the offences alleged

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

against him. There are specific allegations against

the appellant in the statement of the victim lady

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. CWs-6 to

11 are the eyewitnesses who are the neighbours of

the appellant. It is his further submission that the

medical certificate of the complainant shows that

she has sustained four injuries when she was

residing in Bengaluru and the said wound

certificate is issued by Primary Health Center,

Kodligate, Bengaluru East Taluk. The said wound

certificate is of the year 2015. It is his further

submission that considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the

impugned order which does not call for any

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant would contend that accused Nos.2 to

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

4 the family members of accused No.1 have

abused the complainant touching her caste and at

that time appellant/accused No.1 kept silence and

therefore he also having the same intention which

attracts the offence under Section 34 of IPC. The

appellant/accused No.1 found with another woman

in photo uploaded in the face-book which is seen

by this complainant through her face-book and it

appears that this appellant/accused No.1 has

married another lady which attracts the offence

under Section 494 of IPC. It is his further

submission that on perusal of the entire charge

sheet material there is a prima facie case against

the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences alleged

against him. considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the

impugned order which does not call for any

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

7. Having regard to the submissions made

by learned counsel for the appellant, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-

State, this Court has gone through the charge

sheet records and the impugned order.

8. On perusal of the entire averments of the

complaint and the statement of the complainant

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is no

allegation against this appellant/accused No.1 of

abusing the complainant touching her caste.

Therefore, there is no prima facie case to attract

the offence under Section 3 of SC and ST(POA)

Act. The other offences alleged against the

appellant are not punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. Without considering all

these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has passed

the impugned order which requires interference by

- 12 -

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

this Court. The main apprehension of the

prosecution is that, if the appellant/accused No.1

is granted anticipatory bail, they will threaten the

complainant and other prosecution witnesses and

flee from justice, can be met with by imposing

certain stringent conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court is

of the view that there are valid grounds for setting

aside the impugned order and to grant anticipatory

bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order

dated 06.06.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.235/2022 by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, is set

aside. Consequently, the petition filed by

appellant/accused No.1 under Section 438 of

- 13 -

CRL.A No. 100386 of 2022

Cr.P.C., stands allowed. The appellant/accused

No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in the event

of his arrest in Crime No. 41/2021 of Ankola Police

Station, subject to the following conditions:

i. The appellant shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

       (Rupees        One   Lakh        Only)       with    one
       surety     for       the        likesum       to     the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii. The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii. The appellant shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

iv. The appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM