Karnataka High Court
Hanish Abdul Khadar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
CRL.A No. 582 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2)-)
BETWEEN:
HANISH ABDUL KHADAR,
S/O. ABDUL KHADAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RHAS NIVAS, THURAVOOR PO
CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, KE
NOW, AT DOOR NO. 8,
1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, MALLAPPA,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SUDHA S 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH BY HENNUR POLICE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SHILPA
W/O. HANISH ABDUL KHADAR,
D/O. SHEEJA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
CRL.A No. 582 of 2024
R/AT OUTHAL PARAMBU,
NEERKUNNAM, AMBALAPPUZHA,
ALAPPUZHA,
KERALA - 688 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VINAYA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LXX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.2244/2024 DATED
05.03.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL, IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, WHO IS ACCUSED IN
CR.NO.456/2023 (SPL.C.C.NO.153/2024 REGISTERED BY THE
HENNUR POLICE, ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-
71) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 354, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.
3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
CRL.A No. 582 of 2024
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the
appellant/accused No.1 under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for
setting aside the order passed by the LXX Addl. City Civil and
Session Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71),
passed in Crl.Misc.No.2244/2024 dated 05.03.2024 in respect
of Crime No.456/2023 registered by Hennur Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 506 of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(a),
3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC &
ST Act').
2. Heard Sri.Lakshmikanth.K, learned counsel is
represented for Sri.Sharath.J.M, learned counsel for the
appellant, Smt.Sowmya.R, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Vinaya.V.R, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent
No.2 is the wife of the appellant and their marriage was
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
solemnized on 15.07.2021. After marriage, they started
residing at Shobha Arcades Apartment, Horamavu, Bangalore.
As per the averments of the complaint, there were frequent
quarrels between the husband and the wife. Respondent No.2
was not happy in her matrimonial home. It is further stated
that, the appellant was harassing respondent No.2 in one or the
other pretext and he was not taking proper care. Such being
the fact, she became pregnant and on 05.04.2022, she gave
birth to a child. After she gave birth to a child, she has been
deserted and thrown out of the house on the ground that she
belongs to scheduled caste. Being aggrieved by the cruelty and
harassment meted out to her, she has lodged a complaint
against the petitioner. The jurisdictional police after registering
the case, conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that though the complainant made several allegation
against the petitioner, she has compromised with the petitioner
and both have decided to stay together. If bail is granted,
certainly, the matter would likely to be settled.
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
5. It is further submitted that due to some
misconception of facts, the complainant lodged a complaint
and moreover, the alleged offences are neither punishable with
death nor imprisonment for life. Therefore, the bail of the
petitioner may be considered and he may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been settled
between them and they have agreed to live together.
Therefore, the appeal may be allowed.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that, unless
respondent No.2 appeared before this Court and filed a
necessary affidavit or otherwise regarding the settlement, it is
not appropriate to grant bail to the appellant. Moreover, the
allegations are so serious against the appellant and there may
be chances of committing similar offences in the future.
Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the averments of the
charge sheet. It appears that both husband and wife were not
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
cordial in their matrimonial life. However, after having
considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
respective parties regarding the settlement arrived between the
spouse, it is appropriate to grant bail in order to re-establish
their matrimonial life.
9. Hence, I Proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail
in Crime No.0456/2023 of Hennur Police
Station pending on the file of the LXX Addl.
City Civil and Session Judge and Special Judge
at Bengaluru (CCH-71), Bangalore City, on
obtaining a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with
one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the
following conditions:
a) The appellant shall appear before the Court on
all dates of hearing without fail.
b) The appellant shall not tamper the evidence
and threaten the prosecution witnesses.
NC: 2024:KHC:17525
If in case, the appellant violates any of the bail conditions
as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for
cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
