Karnataka High Court
Jayamma vs State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1458 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. Jayamma
W/o. Channaveeraiah
Aged about 54 years
R/at B.D.O.
Quarters, Maddur Town
Mandya District
Pin-571428.
2. B.K. Pooja
W/o. H.C. Mahendra
Aged about 23 years
Both are R/at B.D.O.
Quarters, Maddur Town
Mandya District
PIN-571428.
...Appellants
(By Sri N.P. Manu, Advocate for
Sri R. Srinivas, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Maddur P.S.
Mandya
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
Hig h Court of Karnataka
Beng aluru-560 001.
:: 2 ::
2. Darshini D.R.
D/o. Rang app a
Aged about 18 years
R/at BDO Quarters
Maddur Taluk
Mandya District.
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP for R1;
R2 Served - Unrep resented)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST(POA), praying to g rant anticipatory
bail and direct the respond ent p olice to release the
app ellant in the events of their arrest in Cr.
No.160/2022 for the offence punishab le under
Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
and und er Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act pending on the file of the
Hon'b le V Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Mandya.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri N.P.Manu, advocate on behalf of Sri
R.Srinivas, learned advocate for the appellants
and the learned Government Pleader for
respondent No.1. Government Pleader submits
that respondent No.2 has been served according to
:: 3 ::
the police report. There is no representation on
behalf of respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is filed under section 14A(2)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the order
dated 27.7.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
623/2022 on the file of V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Mandya. Since the appellants'
application for anticipatory bail under section 438
Cr.P.C was rejected by the impugned order, this
appeal has been preferred.
3. If the impugned order is perused, the
court below is of the opinion that investigation was
still in progress and in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and Another vs Ramakrishna Balothia
and Another [(1995) 3 SCC 221], anticipatory
bail cannot be granted. It is a matter to be
mentioned here that the trial court has also placed
:: 4 ::
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Pruthvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of
India [WP(C) No.1015/2018]. It can be only
said that the court below has failed to apply its
mind to the facts of the case to arrive at a
conclusion whether anticipatory bail can be
granted or not.
4. FIR was registered on 2.7.2022 at 20:30
hours for the offences under sections 354, 323,
506, 504 of IPC and sections 3(1)(r), (s) and (w)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 34
of IPC. It appears that a quarrel among women
folk at 9.15 AM on 2.7.2022 while fetching water
from a public tap could be the reason for the FIR
being registered in Crime No.160/2022 at first
respondent police station. It is stated that at that
time the appellants and one Mahendra assaulted
second respondent and dragged holding her tuft.
:: 5 ::
As regards Mahendra it is alleged that he tore of
her T-shirt. There is also another allegation that
the appellants insulted second respondent taking
the name of her caste. She has mentioned a past
incident that while she was washing the premises
of a temple, the first appellant's son Mahendra
came from behind and embraced her and at that
time she had to beat him with a broom.
5. So far as the offence under section 354 IPC
is concerned, since both the appellants are
women, it is difficult to invoke the said offence
against them. It is submitted by the appellants
counsel that the first accused namely Mahendra
has already been admitted to bail. He shows the
certified copy of the order of granting bail to
Mahendra.
6. Though in the FIR there is mention that
both the accused took the name of the caste of
respondent No.2, the very fact that second
:: 6 ::
respondent waited till 8.30 PM to go to police
station creates doubts in the veracity of the FIR.
Government Pleader submits that the appellants
did not cooperate with investigation and they are
absconding. Charge sheet is filed showing them as
absconded therefore they are not entitled to
anticipatory bail.
7. It has to be stated that though the charge
sheet is filed indicating that appellants have
remained absconding, it is difficult to believe that
the appellants who are women really absconded.
In this view, I do not find a prima facie case in
regard to the offences under sections 3(1)(r), (s)
and (w) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The trial court could have granted anticipatory
bail. Hence, the following : -
ORDER
(a) Appeal is allowed.
:: 7 ::
(b) The order dated 27.7.2022 in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.
623/2022 on the file of V
Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Mandya, is set aside.
(c) The appellants shall appear before
the Special Court and each of
them shall execute a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- and provide two
sureties for the likesum to its
satisfaction. The appellants are
also subjected to following
conditions:-
(i) They shall not threaten the
witnesses and tamper with
evidence.
(ii) They shall appear before the
trial court whenever their
presence is necessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ckl/-
