Karnataka High Court
Sri. Purushotham M vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
CRL.A No. 791 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 791 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. PURUSHOTHAM M
S/O A MUNNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT No.2/442b, BATHALAPALLI
MGR COLLEGE, MORANAPALLI KRISHNAGIRI
TAMILNADU - 635 106.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VINAYA KUMAR N D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
THROUGH KONANAKUNTE POLICE
STATION, KONANAKUNTE
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA BENGALURU - 560 062.
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SMT. SHOBHA K S
KARNATAKA
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT No.30, KOTHANURU VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
J P NAGARA, 8TH PHASE
BENGALURU -560 083.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R RANGASWAMY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
CRL.A No. 791 of 2024
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGED THE APPELLANTS (ACCUSED
No.1) ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.No.83/2024 AND
DIRECTED TO RESPONDENT NO.1 KONANAKUNTE POLICE
STATION IN EVENT OF APPELLANTS BEING ARRESTED IN
CONNECTION OF CASE IN OFFENCE P/U/S 4 OF D.P. ACT,
SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, SECTION
506, 498A, 504, 313 OF IPC THE APPELLANTS SHALL BE
RELEASED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL FORTHWITH AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARINGTHIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by appellant - accused No. 1
praying to set aside the order dated 27.03.2024 passed in
Crl.Misc. No. 2355/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Benglauru
whereunder the petition filed by appellant - accused No. 1
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in
respect of crime No. 83/2024 of Konanakunte Police
Station registered for offence punishable under Sections
506, 498-A, 504, 313 of IPC, Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity
referred to as the D.P. Act') and Section 3(2)(v) of
Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity
referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act') came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused
No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State.
Respondent No. 2, inspite of service of notice, has
remained absent and unrepresented.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage
of respondent No.2 with appellant - accused No. 1 had
taken place on 02.09.2021 and thereafter, appellant -
accused No. 1 started to reside with respondent No. 2 in a
rented house at Kumaraswamy Layout. Respondent No.2
had conceived two times and appellant - accused No.1
gave unwanted kit which resulted in abortion. Thereafter,
they shifted to house No. 30, Kothanuru village and
resided therein. It is alleged that thereafter in February,
2024 appellant - accused No. 1 demanded dowry and
abused respondent No. 2 using her caste name and
assaulted her and left her in her matrimonial house.
Thereafter respondent No. 2 made phone call to appellant
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
- accused No. 1 and asked him to come to the house and
at that time, he demanded Rs.30.00 lakhs as dowry and
gave her life threat. It is further alleged that on
11.02.2024 on coming to know that appellant - accused
No. 1 is having marriage engagement with some other
lady, she went along with Police to that place and the
Police advised him. Said complaint came to be registered
in crime No. 83/2024 for offence under Sections 506, 498-
A, 504, 313 of IPC, Section 4 of D.P. Act and Section
3(2)(v) SC ST (POA) Act. The appellant - accused No. 1
filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking
anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No. 2355/2024 and the same
came to be rejected by the impugned order which is
challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 1
would contend that respondent No.2 is the wife of
appellant - accused No. 1 and therefore, there is no
question of any abuse by him taking the caste name. He
further contended that the alleged act has taken place
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
within four corners of the house and therefore, the offence
under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted.
He contends that the alleged life threat by appellant -
accused No. 1 to respondent No. 2 is over phone and there
is no material collected by the Investigating Officer to
show phone call between appellant - accused No. 1 and
respondent No. 2. Therefore, considering the above
aspects, there is no prima facie case to attract offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST (POA) Act and therefore,
bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not
attracted. Without considering these aspects learned
Special Judge passed the impugned order which requires
interference by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the
appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant -
accused No. 1.
5. Learned HCGP would contend that the
averments of the complaint attract the alleged offences
against appellant - accused No. 1. Considering the bar
under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act the Special Court
has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail petition. There are
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
no grounds to set aside the impugned order and grant
anticipatory bail to appellant - accused No. 1. With this he
prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant
- accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 -
State, this Court has perused the impugned order and
charge sheet material furnished by the learned HCGP.
7. On perusal of column No. 17 of the charge
sheet it is seen that the accusation against this appellant -
accused No. 1 is that he abused respondent No. 2 during
February 2024 and assaulted in the house. Thereafter,
when respondent No. 2 made phone call to him he
demanded Rs.30.00 lakhs dowry and gave her life threat.
The alleged act of abusing and assaulting the victim, i.e.,
respondent No. 2 has taken place in house No. 30 of
Kothnur village. As the said act has taken place within four
corners of the house the offence under Section 3 of SC ST
(POA) Act is not attracted.
8. The other offence under Section 506 of IPC
read with Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC ST (POA) Act is also
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
alleged against appellant - accused No. 1. The accusation
against him is that when the victim - respondent No. 2
made phone call to him and asked him to come to the
house, at that time, he demanded Rs.30.00 lakhs as
dowry to come to the house and gave her life threat over
phone. The charge sheet material does not contain any
call details/records to establish that there was a phone
conversation between respondent No. 2 and appellant -
accused No. 1 during February, 2024. Therefore, at this
stage, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case
against the appellant - accused No. 1 for offence under
Section 506 read with Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC ST
(POA) Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC ST
(POA) Act is not attracted. Without considering all these
aspects learned Special Judge has rejected the
anticipatory bail petition. Therefore, the impugned order
requires to be interfered with.
9. In the result, the following;
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
27.03.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 2355/2024 by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Benglauru is hereby set aside. The anticipatory bail
petition of appellant - accused No. 1 filed in Crl.Misc. No.
2355/2024 is allowed. The appellant - accused No. 1 is
ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in
crime No. 83/2024 of Konanakunte Police Station subject
to the following conditions:
I. The appellant - accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
II. The appellant - accused No. 1 shall voluntarily
appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days
from today and execute bail bond and surety.
III. The appellant - accused No.1 shall not threaten
the complainant and tamper the prosecution
witnesses.
NC: 2024:KHC:19978
IV. The appellant - accused No. 1 shall appear
before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and
cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
