Karnataka High Court
Sikandar S/O Mehaboobsab Neeli vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100237 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SIKANDAR S/O MEHABOOBSAB NEELI
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O.VEERESHWAR NAGAR,
TQ. DISTRICT. GADAG-582101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally THE GADAG WOMEN POLICE STATION, GADAG-582101
signed by J
J
MAMATHA REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MAMATHA Date:
2023.06.21 HIGH COURT BUILDING,
12:28:18
+0530 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD BENCH-580011
2. SMT. SHOBHA W/O SOMASHEKAR KENGODAPPANAVAR
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BEAUTICIAN,
R/O. KALASAPUR ROAD,
TQ. DIST. GADAG-582101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. SUNIL KHOT, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG IN CRIL.MISC NO.
142/2023 BY ITS ORDER DATED 12.05.2023 GRANT BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN GADAG P.S. CR.NO. 12 OF 2023
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 354A, 354D, 504, 506 OF
-2-
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
IPC AND SEC. 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3(1)(W)(i)(ii), 3(2) (va) OF SC ST
ACT, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELASE THE APPELLANT
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved by rejection of
anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gadag, in criminal Misc.No.142/2023 dated 12.05.2023,
preferred this appeal.
2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their
ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of
convenience.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader
representing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Sunil Khot,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 are present and they
orally objects for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Heard the arguments of both sides.
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
5. On the strength of the complaint filed by
Smt.Shobha W/o Somashekar Kengodappanavar, criminal
law was set into motion by registering the case in Gadag
Women PS, crime No.12/2023 for the offences punishable
under Section 354A, 354D, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'Act').
6. Appellant/accused has approached the trial
Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The trial Court by order
dated 12.05.2023 dismissed the anticipatory bail
application, on the ground that there is prima facie
material evidence and there is bar under Section 18 of the
Act, to maintain the anticipatory bail petition.
7. On careful perusal of complaint allegations, it
would go to show that complainant is beautician and
running "Prerana" beautician shop at Hudko 2nd cross,
Gadag. About 8 years back, complainant on her mobile
received an unknown call and the caller insisted
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
complainant to meet him, otherwise threatened to take
away the life of her husband and children. On such threat
complainant met accused in Veeranarayana Temple of
Gadag. However, the accused under intoxication continued
to harass complainant which made her to shift the beauty
parlor shop from one place to another. On 13.04.2023 at
about 2.30 p.m. accused came to the shop of complainant
and questioned her as to why she is not picking his phone
and started abusing in filthy language, thereafter slapped
on her cheek. The complainant informed the said fact to
her husband and both of them went to S.P. office Gadag,
who directed them to file complaint before Mahila Police
Station and accordingly, the complaint was filed.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2
have contended that there is a bar to maintain anticipatory
bail in terms of Section 18 of the Act. In this context of the
matter it is useful to refer the judgment of Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in SHAILESH KUMAR V/S. STATE
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
OF KARNATAKA, reported in 2023 LIVE LAW (KAR)
31, whereby referring the judgment of Hon'ble Apex in the
case of HITESH VARMA V/S. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and the
judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in LOKANATH V/S.
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE
KAR 14896, it has been observed and held that the
offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact
that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste, unless
there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Caste Tribe for the reason that the
victim belongs to such caste.
9. In the present case, the alleged harassment is
continued for about 7 to 8 years even accordingly to the
complaint averments. However, no any action was taken
so far till the date of filing complaint. The only assertion
that she did not take action under threat for a long period
of 7 to 8 years appears to be unreasonable and cannot be
accepted. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be inferred
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
that accused has humiliated the complainant in public view
for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Hence, there is no legal impediment to consider
anticipatory bail application.
10. Appellant contended that he has approached
the respondent No.2 to get his money back, as he was
facing problems and to attend the health issues. In order
to escape from paying money due to complainant this
false case is filed. Looking to the complaint allegations, it
would go to show that complainant remained silent for
about unreasonable time of 7 to 8 years on the alleged
harassment of accused. Complaint was filed on
16.04.2023 on the alleged incident that took place in the
beauty parlor shop of complainant on the allegation that
accused questioned the complainant as to why she is not
picking up phone and slapped on her cheek. The said
factual aspect of the matter alleged in the complaint is
mater of trial. The offences punishable under Sections
354A and 354D are bailable offences. It is true that for
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
second offence under Section 354D punishment prescribed
is 5 years and it is non-bailable. At this stage no material
has been produced to show that it is a case of second and
subsequent conviction against accused. Hence, under
these circumstances, in my opinion accused is entitled for
anticipatory bail. Consequently, proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
Appeal filed by appellant/accused is hereby allowed.
Order of trial Court on the file of Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in criminal Misc.No.142/2023
dated 12.05.2023 is hereby set-aside.
Appellant/accused in the event of his arrest in Gadag
Women PS, crime No.12/2023 is ordered to be released on
bail on his executing personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court subject to following conditions:-
CRL.A No. 100237 of 2023
1. Appellant/accused shall produce address proof
documents of himself and that of his surety subject
to police verification.
2. Appellant/accused shall not be leave the
jurisdiction of the trial Court without it's prior
permission.
3. Appellant/accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution witness in any manner.
4. Appellant/accused shall not contact complainant.
5. Appellant/accused shall co-operate with
investigating officer as and when called for the
purpose of investigation.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
AC
