Karnataka High Court

Smt T Suma vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:42820
                                                           CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                                BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1667 OF 2024
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SMT T SUMA
                            D/O V THIMMEGOWDA,
                            AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                            R/O NO. 559. 1ST FLOOR,
                            4TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK,
                            BANASHANKARI,
                            BANGALORE-560 050.

                      2.    SHARATH CHANDRA R S@ SHARATH,
                            S/O URESH CHANDRA,
                            AGED 29 YEARS, R/O NO. 235/405,
                            NEAR HOODI METRO STATION,
                            HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA,
                            BANGALORE-560 048.
                                                                     ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY Smt. TARJANI DESAI., ADVOCATE)
                      AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA       1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH              BY HANUMANTHNAGAR P.S
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                            BANGALORE - 01

                      2.    SMT. ASHA,
                            W/O HARISH, AGED 27 YEARS,
                            R/AT NO. 559, 4TH CROSS,
                            HANUMANTHANAGAR,
                            BANGALORE - 56050
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R-1
                          SRI. S.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:42820
                                       CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024




      THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO 1) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTING THE BAIL,
DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.6876/2024 BY
THE LEARNED XX ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-71) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC,.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR



                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 praying

to set aside the order dated 19.08.2024 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.6876/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71),

whereunder anticipatory bail petition of these appellants -

accused Nos.1 and 2 sought in respect of crime

No.191/2024 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station for

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

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989

(Hereinafter referred to as "SC and ST Act" for brevity)

came to be rejected.

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

2. Heard learned counsel for appellants -accused

Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint against

appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that there was

quarrel between her and appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2

on 16.07.2024 at about 10.00 p.m. and in that regard she

had gone to the police station to file complaint on

17.07.2024. When she was came out from the Police

Station and when she was on the road in front of the

Police Station, appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 abused

her by taking her caste. The said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.191 of 2024 of Hanumanthanagara

Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the ST and ST Act. Appellants -

accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehending their arrest have filed

petition seeking anticipatory bail and same came to be

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in

this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellants -accused Nos.1

and 2 wound contend that with regard to incident dated

16.07.2024 the appellant -accused No.1 has filed

complaint against respondent No.2 and it came to be

registered in Crime No.186 of 2024. She further contends

that respondent No.2 has also filed complaint against

appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 and same came to be

registered in Crime No.187 of 2024. She contends that

there is no allegation of caste abuse by appellants -

accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said Crime No.187 of 2024.

The present complaint came to be filed on 20.07.2024 as

Police did not arrest appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2

making a false allegation of the incident dated

17.07.2024. There is delay in filing the complaint and

same itself indicate that the complaint is filed as after

thought to harass appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2. The

averments made in the complaint indicate that there is

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

omnibus allegation against appellants -accused Nos.1 and

2 of abuse caste and who has abused and what words has

not specifically stated in the complaint. The incident has

not taken place in view of public as no persons were

present at the time of incident. There is no prima facie

case for offences as alleged to attract bar under Section

18 of the SC and ST Act. On these grounds, she prayed to

allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to appellants -

accused Nos.1 and 2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

would contend that on plain reading of the averments of

the complaint that appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 have

abused respondent No.2 by taking her caste and it attracts

offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act.

Considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act

learned Sessions Judge has rejected anticipatory bail

petition of these appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2. With

this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 would contend that there is abuse by

appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 by taking caste name of

respondent No.2 and it attracts offence punishable under

Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. Considering the bar under

Section 18 of the SC and ST Act, learned Special Judge

has rejected anticipatory bail petition of these appellants -

accused Nos.1 and 2. With this, he prays for dismissal of

the appeal.

7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

perused complaint, FIR, impugned order and other

materials placed on record.

8. There was quarrel between appellants -accused

Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 on 16.07.2024. The

appellant -accused No.1 has lodged the complaint against

respondent No.2 and it came to be registered in Crime

No.186 of 2024. Respondent No.2 has also filed complaint

and it came to be registered in Crime No.187 of 2024.

There is no allegations of abuse by taking her caste in the

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

complaint registered in Crime No.18 of 2024. The alleged

incident has taken place on 17.07.2024 in front of the

Police Station. The complaint came to be filed on

20.07.2024, there is delay of 03 days in lodging the

complaint even though incident has taken placed in front

of the Police Station. As there is case and counter case

between appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent

No.2 registered earlier to this alleged incident, it appears

that a false case has been registered against appellants -

accused Nos.1 and 2 as no action has been taken against

appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.187 of 2024.

The accusation made in the complaint of abusing

respondent No.2 by taking her caste are omnibus

allegations. There is no specific allegations against each of

appellants and what words each of them abused are not

mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, at this stage it

cannot be said that there is prima facie case against

appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 and for offence

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

and ST Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC

and ST Act is not attracted. Without considering all these

aspects, learned Sessions/Special Judge erred in rejecting

anticipatory bail petition of these appellants -accused

Nos.1 and 2 which requires interference by this Court.

In the result, the following

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 19.08.2024 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.6876/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) is

set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail petition of these

appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 is allowed and they are

ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.191 of 2024 of

Hanumanthanagara Police Station in event of his arrest

subject to the following conditions:

i. Appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to

NC: 2024:KHC:42820

the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.


         ii.    Appellants -accused Nos.1 and 2 shall
                voluntarily      appear       before       the
                Investigating          Officer/Jurisdictional
                Court within fifteen days from today
                and execute bail bonds and surety.