Karnataka High Court
Shantawwa S/O Shankrappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazipresided Byjmkj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100339 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTAWWA W/O. SHANKRAPPA GULANNANAVAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HOTANAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI- 581205.
2. ROOPA W/O. RAVIRAJ @RAVI KALLIMANI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KUNDUR, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI- 581205.
3. NETRA @GEETA W/O. SIDDAPPA TEVARI @TOGARI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARALESHWAR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI- 581104.
4. SIDDAPPA BASAVANTAPPA TEVARI @TOGARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARALESHWAR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI- 581104.
CHANDRASHEKAR ...APPELLANTS
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Date: 2023.08.11
16:54:54 -0700 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD- 580011,
THROUGH HAVERI WOMEN P.S.
2. HEMAVATI HANAMANTAPPA RANGAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
BRC OFFICE, BYADAGI,
R/O: TEREDAHALLI, TQ: BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI- 581106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL AND PASS AN ORDER TO ENLARGE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 5 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN
HAVERI WOMAN P.S. CRIME NO. 43/2023 ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE I-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.
323, 354, 376(2)(n), 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (PA)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND U/SEC. SEC. 67(A) OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.07.2023 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.
499/2023 BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE HAVERI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5
are seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.43/2023 for the
offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 376(2)(N),
420, 504 and 506 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to
as "SC/ST Act") and Section 67(A) of Information
Technology Act, 2008. They have contended that they are
innocent persons and not committed the alleged offences.
The allegations against them are vague in nature and
concocted. There is a delay of more than five days in filing
the complaint and no reasons are forthcoming for the
delay. It is alleged that the incident took place when
complainant went to the house of appellants. It indicates
that they had no intention or motive to commit alleged
offences.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
2. Appellant No.1 is aged and suffering from age
related disorders. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are married
daughters and appellant No.4 is the husband of appellant
No.3 and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are residing separately. As
the alleged incident took place inside the house of
accused No.1, offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, are not
attracted. The only allegations against appellants are that
they have assaulted and committed alleged atrocity on
her which does not attracted for the offence punishable
under Section 376 IPC. Since complainant is not known to
the appellants, there was no question of they knowing the
caste of complainant. These allegations are cooked up to
rope them in under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Having
regard to the nature of allegations made against the
appellants, their custodial interrogation is not required
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
and prays to allow the petition and release them on
anticipatory bail.
3. Relying upon the following decisions, learned
counsel for appellants submitted that as per these
decisions, the prosecution has failed to make out a prima
facie case against the appellants and as such they are
entitled for anticipatory bail.
i. Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and
Other1 (Prathvi Raj Chauhan)
ii. Chandra Poojari vs. State of Karnataka
Seshadripuram police, Bangalore.2 (Chandra
Poojari)
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
filed objections stating complainant is working as data
entry operator in B.R.C. office Byadagi, since last six
years. During 2019, she came in contact with accused
(2020) 4 SCC 727
1997(4) Kar. L.J.81
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
No,1 and both fell in love with each other and assuring to
marry her, accused No.1 had physical relationship with
complainant against her consent. For the purpose of
construction of house, he has taken Rs.2,00,000/-
through phone pay and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the
complainant. However, he did not return the money and
also went back on his promised to marry her. When the
complainant questioned him, he gave threat of circulating
her naked photographs in the social media. Complainant
said this fact to her parents and relatives. On 20.06.2023
At about 6.10 complainant, her uncle-Siddappa and
others went to the house of accused No.1 and
complainant disclosed the fact that she having fell in love
with accused No.1 and that he now refusing to marry
her. Accused Nos.2 and 5 ( Appellant Nos.1 to 4) abused
her referring to her caste, assaulted with hands by
dragging her tuft. They gave threat to her life.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
4.1. Based on the complaint, case is registered and
investigation is taken up. Since date of incident all the
accused persons are absconding. As per Section 18(A)(2)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) 1989, provisions of
Section 438 Cr.P.C are not applicable and petitioners are
not entitled for anticipatory bail and prays to reject the
petition.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
6. Before appreciating the facts of the case and
grounds urged by the appellants while seeking
anticipatory bail, it is relevant to note that Section
18(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
provides that the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are
not applicable to a case, where the accused persons are
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act. In other words, where the accused persons
alleged to have committed the offence punishable under
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
However, in Chandra Poojari, the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court held that where the allegations does not attract
the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v)
and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, the prohibition under Section
18(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is
not applicable. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan also the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that where a prima facie case is
not made out, then a Section 18 and 18(A) have no
application. In the light of the ratio of decision in Prathvi
Raj Chauhan, it is necessary to examine whether the
prosecution has made out the prima facie case against
appellants so far as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii),
3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, is concerned.
7. Appellants are arraigned as the accused Nos.2
to 5. They are the mother, sisters and brother-in-law of
accused No.1. As reflected in the complaint, it is the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
definite case of the prosecution that complainant who is
aged about 27 years as on the date of filing of complaint,
fell in love with accused No.1 and they had physical
relationship. It is alleged that during this period, accused
No.1 took loan of Rs.2,00,000/- through phone pay and
Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the complainant for
construction of house at his native place. When she
demanded back the money, he was annoyed and he
refused to marry her and also gave threat of uploading
her photographs in the social media. When she went the
house of accused No.1 in order to inform her family
members, about their relationship the appellants picked
up quarrel with her, abused her referring to her caste and
also assaulted her.
8. So far as appellants are concerned, the
provisions of Section 376(1) IPC and 67 of Information
Technology Act, are not attributed. The allegations
against them is that they abused complainant referring
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
her caste attracting the provisions Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. In the
complaint itself it is alleged that incident dated
20.06.2023 took place inside the house of appellants and
in the presence of complainant uncles-Siddappa Talawar
and Rammanna Talawar. Consequently, the said incident
has not taken place in a public place and in the public
view.
9. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of
the considered opinion that at this stage there is no prima
facie case made out against appellants to attract the
provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Consequently the prohibition of
contained in Section 18A(2) is not attracted to the case of
the appellants. So far as other offences are concerned i.e.
Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC, they are not
exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. It appears because of accused No.1 refused to marry
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
the complainant and also some monitory transactions
with him. They have been roped in to pressurize the
accused No.1. Having regard to these aspects, this Court
is of the considered opinion that they are entitled for
anticipatory bail, subject following conditions:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
In the event of their arrest
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall be released
on bail, in crime No.43/2023 for the offences
punishable under Section 323, 354, 376(2)(N),
420, 504 and 506 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 67(A) of
Information Technology Act, 2008, subject to
following:
CONDITIONS
a) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall
execute personal bond in a sum of
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each for the
like-sum.
b) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall
appear before the investigating officer
within a period of 15 days and execute the
bail bond and offer surety.
c) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall make
themselves available for the purpose of
investigation as and when required and
shall co-operate with the investigation.
d) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall
furnish their residential address proof and
shall inform the investigating officer/Court
if there is any change in the address.
e) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall mark
attendance at the Jurisdictional Police
Station once in 15 days till filing of the
charge sheet.
f) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall not
tamper with the prosecution witnesses
either directly or indirectly.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8598
CRL.A No. 100339 of 2023
g) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall not
indulge in any criminal activities.
f) The petitioner/accused No.2 to 5 shall be
regular in attending the Court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC
