Smt Rathnavathi.K vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2297 Kant

                                            -1-
                                                   CRL.A No. 611 of 2023




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                          BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2023
             BETWEEN:

             1.    SMT RATHNAVATHI.K
                   W/O JAGDISH CHANDRA A K,
                   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                   R/O 78, TRIPURA SRI NILAYA,
                   KRISHNANDA NAGAR,
                   BANGALORE-560 096.
                                                             ...APPELLANT

             (BY SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

Digitally    1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by          BY JAYANAGAR P S,
LAKSHMI T          REP. BY STATE P P,
Location:          HIGH COURT BUILDING,
High Court         BANGALORE-560 001.
of
Karnataka    2.    PRAMODINI R
                   D/O RAVI,
                   NO 476, KR LAYOUT, 6TH PHASE,
                   JP NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY
                   KARNATAKA-560 078.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1)


                    THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT

             PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE HER ON

             BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.42/2023 FOR THE
                               -2-
                                        CRL.A No. 611 of 2023




OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(xii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTION

354(A), 506, 504, 376 OF IPC REGISTERED BY JAYANAGAR P.S.,

PENDING BEFORE THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).


     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State and perused the material on record.

2. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has filed a memo reporting service of notice on respondent

No.2, however there is no representation.

3. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.2 in

Cr.No.42/2023 of Jayanagar Police Station registered for

offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(xii) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

CRL.A No. 611 of 2023

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST (POA) Act) and

under Sections 354A, 506, 504 and 376 of IPC.

4. Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by

the appellant herein has been rejected by the learned

Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1710/2023 by an order

dated 15.03.2023, hence this appeal.

5. FIR is registered against one Ravindra/accused

No.1 and the appellant herein, alleging sexual assault and

rape committed against the first informant in a Unisex

Saloon, wherein the first informant was working as a

Beautician. A perusal of the complaint averments would

reveal that on 14.02.2023 at about 2.30 p.m. accused

No.1-Brother-in-law of the appellant herein came to the

said Saloon and then committed sexual assault on the

victim and then threatened her with dire consequences

etc. It is alleged that the said Saloon is being run by the

appellant and her husband and the appellant has abetted

the commission of the offence by accused No.1. It is

CRL.A No. 611 of 2023

further alleged that the appellant herein abused the first

informant taking her caste name and insulted her etc.

6. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the

prayer seeking anticipatory bail has observed that the

appellant herein has insisted the victim to provide free

service and service like happy ending to accused No.1,

who subsequently committed forcible sexual act on the

victim and further that there are prima facie materials to

attract Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore,

the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application

seeking anticipatory bail.

7. The incident is alleged to have taken place on

14.02.2023 at about 2.30 p.m. The allegation against

accused No.1 is that he committed sexual assault on the

victim. In the written complaint, which is filed on

16.02.2023, it is alleged that the appellant herein was

forcing the victim to give free service and also service like

happy ending. It is not forthcoming from the complaint

that on the date of incident i.e. 14.02.2023 the appellant

CRL.A No. 611 of 2023

herein had either forced the victim to give free service or

that she had abetted accused No.1 to commit sexual

assault on the victim. The complaint is lodged after two

days. It is alleged that the appellant herein has supported

accused No.1 and also insulted the victim by referring to

her caste etc. The said allegation is vague in nature.

8. learned counsel for the appellant relying on a

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v.

State of Uttarkhand and another reported in

(2020) 10 SCC 710 has contended that the offence

under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act would not

attract unless and until it is shown that the said Act is

committed by the accused only on the ground that the

victim belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

9. In the aforementioned decision, it is held that

all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an

offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, unless such insult or

intimidation is only on account of victim belonging to

SC/ST.

CRL.A No. 611 of 2023

10. As already observed, the allegations made

against the appellant with regard to the provisions under

SC/ST is very vague and it is not stated as to when and in

whose presence the appellant abused the victim in filthy

language referring to her caste. It is also not the case of

prosecution that only on account of victim belonging to a

member of vulnerable section of society, she was abused

or threatened by the appellant.

11. The appellant is a woman. Considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment for

this Court to grant the relief sought by the appellant by

imposing conditions. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed. The order dated

15.03.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1710/2023, by the LXX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

CRL.A No. 611 of 2023

2. The appellant/accused No.2 shall be released on

bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.42/2023 of

Jayanagar Police Station, registered for offences

punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(xii) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 354(A), 506, 504

and 376 of IPC, subject to following conditions:

i. Appellant shall appear before the

Investigation Officer within a period of one week

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

learned Magistrate.

ii. Appellant shall co-operate with the

investigation/enquiry and she shall not tamper

with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

CRL.A No. 611 of 2023

iii. Appellant shall furnish proof of her

residential address and shall inform the

Court/IO regarding change in the address, if any.

iv. Appellant shall be regular in attending the

Court proceedings.

SD/-

JUDGE

TL