Karnataka High Court

Smt Pavitra B N vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                          -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:6672
                                                CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2212 OF 2024

            BETWEEN:
            1.    SMT. PAVITRA B.N.,
                  W/O C.G. KUMAR,
                  AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                  RESIDING AT NO.419,
                  TANK ROAD, VANNIGARAPETE,
                  DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
                  BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
                  PIN - 561 203.

            2.    SRI C.G. KUMAR,
                  S/O GURURAJU .C.P,
                  AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                  RESIDING AT NO.419,
                  TANK ROAD, VANNIGARAPETE,
                  DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BENGALURU
                  RURAL DISTRICT. PIN - 561 203
Digitally                                                ...APPELLANTS
signed by (BY SRI. VENKATESH H.N., ADVOCATE)
MALATESH
KC        AND:
Location:
HIGH      1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF      BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA     TUMAKURU TOWN POLICE
                  STATION, TUMAKURU - 572 101.
                  REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT
                  BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

            2.    AISHWARYA T.G.,
                  W/O. ARUN KUMAR B.N.,
                               -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:6672
                                        CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024




   AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
   RESIDING AT 6TH CROSS,
   NR COLONY, TUMAKURU TOWN,
   TUMAKURU KARNATAKA, PIN - 572 101
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 STATE.
     SRI. SHARAN L. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING    TO     SET    ASIDE    THE    ORDER       PASSED    IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1560/2024 DTD 19.10.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU IN SPL.CASE.NO.278/2024, VIDE DOCUMENT NO.7
TO THIS APPEAL, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 506
R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC.3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V)(A) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 1989, AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPELLANTS   IN    THE    EVENT   OF    THEIR    ARREST   BY   1ST
RESPONDENT        POLICE,   TUMAKURU        TOWN       P.S.,   IN
CR.NO.151/2024 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.

     THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Venkatesh H.N., learned counsel for the

appellants, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Sharan

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

L. Jain, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant-

respondent No.2.

2. Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST Act') with following

prayer:

"To set aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.1560/2024, dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.Case No.278/2024, vide document No.7 to this appeal, for the alleged offences punishable U/s. 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(l)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants in the event of their arrest by 1st respondent police (Tumakuru Town Police Station) and allow this appeal in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Facts in the nutshell, which are most essential for

disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Tumakuru

Town Police, which was registered in Crime No.151/2024

on 23.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act and Sections 504

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the

appellants.

3.2. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that on

23.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant visited the

police station and lodged a written complaint. In the said

written complaint, it is narrated that she got acquainted

with Arun Kumar through social media-face book and

thereafter there was a love affair and they decided to

marry. The complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste

and Arun Kumar is belonging to the Devanga community.

As such, there was a resistance for the marriage in the

family of Arun Kumar. But Arun Kumar persuaded his

family members and marriage was arranged. On

28.11.2019 marriage took place and thereafter

complainant joined the matrimonial home wherein the

elder sister of her husband Pavithra and her husband

Kumar started opposing the relationship.

3.3. It is further contended that the since

complainant is belonging to Madiga community, Arun

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

Kumar would have had a better alliance and used to insult

the complainant by picking up quarrel. It is also found

from the complaint averments that Arun Kumar should cut

off the marital tie and they would find a better alliance for

him. When complainant left to her parental house for the

confinement period, appellants used to call her over

telephone and abused her in filthy language.

3.4. It is further alleged that father-in-law of the

complainant died recently, and on 15.03.2024 at about

2.30 p.m. both the appellants visited Doddaballapura and

picked up the quarrel, stating that she would not be

allowed to have a share in the ancestral property of the

father-in-law of the complainant.

3.5. It is also found from the complaint averments

that appellants had given life threat apart from abusing

the complainant by taking out the caste name. It is further

contended that delay in lodging the complaint has taken

place on account of the complainant was residing at her

parental home, as she was pregnant and delivered a baby.

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

3.6. Based on the complaint, Tumakuru Town Police

registered the case against the appellants for the aforesaid

offences and after thorough investigation filed the charge

sheet reflecting the appellants as absconding accused.

3.7. The attempt made by the appellants to obtain

grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned

Special Judge. Thereafter, appellants are before this Court.

4. Sri Venkatesh H.N., learned counsel for the

appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

memorandum vehemently contended that material

evidence on record especially the complaint averments

would not make out a case for rejecting the anticipatory

bail by resorting to Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

5. He would further contend that on careful

consideration of material on record, there is no prima-facie

material which would make out a case that appellants

allegedly abused the complainant by taking out the caste

name so as to degrade the complainant in the public view

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

as the incident said to have occurred in the house of the

complainant and therefore, embargo under Section 18 of

the SC/ST is not applicable in the case on hand and

therefore, the appeal can be heard on merits.

6. Insofar as the abscondence of the appellants is

concerned, Sri Venkatesh H.N. would contend that

appellants are not to be termed as absconding accused

persons, inasmuch as, they did approach the Sessions

Court, Tumakuru seeking anticipatory bail and thereafter

they are before this Court.

7. In support of said contentions, Sri Venkatesh H.N

would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and

judgment of Allahabad High Court in Nitin Tomar vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh, the relevant portions at paras 4,

8, 9 and paras 3, 10 and 13 of the respective orders are

culled out hereunder for the ready reference.

"4-Insofar as the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C) against the appellant are concerned, it is submitted that it is

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

not as if there is a complete embargo to consider the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.

9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation. However, liberty is also given to the respondents to seek cancellation of bail that has been granted, in the event of a violation of the conditions which are to be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any perceived threats against the witnesses.

3. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Nitin Tomar in Case Crime No.259 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 307, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Baghpat, District - Baghpat.

10. In Srikant Upadhyay and Ors. (supra) case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 24 that "At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice."

13. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter."

8. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader, while opposing the bail

grounds would contend that admittedly, the appellants are

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

not available to the investigating agency and absconding

charge sheet came to be filed.

9. He would further contend that non-availability

of the appellants during the course of investigation did

hamper the true course of investigation and no reason is

forthcoming as to abscondence of the appellants either in

the appeal memo or in any other material placed on record

along with the appeal memo.

10. He would also contend that very fact that the

appellants are absconding from the date of registration of

the case shows that they are guilty of the offences alleged

against them and therefore, sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

11. Sri Sharan L. Jain, learned counsel for the de-

facto complainant-respondent No.2, while adopting the

arguments put forth on behalf of the learned High Court

Government Pleader, would further contend that complaint

averments makes it clear that prima-facie materials are

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

available on record which would be sufficient enough to

oppose the bail application by resorting to Section 18 of

the SC/ST Act.

12. He invited the attention of this Court to the

statement of the victim recorded by the investigating

officer, wherein there is a specific averment made against

the appellants herein including abusing the complainant in

filthy language by taking out her caste name. He also

invited the attention of this Court to the statements of

eyewitnesses to the incident namely the complainant's

husband Arun Kumar, Vijalakshmi, Prakash and Satheesh

Chandran.

13. He also brought to the notice of this Court the

spot mahazar along with the photograph wherein the place

of incident is a front yard of the house where the

complainant was found. Therefore, the contentions taken

on behalf of the appellants that the incident has not

occurred in the public view cannot be countenanced in law

and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

15. On such perusal of the material on record, there

is no dispute that complainant got married to Arun Kumar

who is the younger brother of first appellant and brother-

in-law of the second appellant. Admittedly, after the

marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home

and there were quarrels in between them on account of

the inter-caste marriage. There is also a dispute with

regard to the property of the father-in-law of the

complainant while registering the property in the name of

Kalavathi.

16. According to the appellants, an agreement to

sell was entered into at the instance of Arun Kumar and

complainant in the name of Kalavathi and pursuant to the

same, the sale deed is also now registered.

17. It is the specific case of the appellants that in

order to knock off the property, denying the share to the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

first appellant, a false complaint came to be foisted against

the appellants herein taking advantage of the caste of the

complainant and Arun Kumar is supporting his wife in the

incident only with an intention to deny the share to the

first appellant in her father's property.

18. Fact remains that there is now ill-will between

the appellants and Arun Kumar and complainant. Whether

the intention of the complainant to foist a false case is only

with an intention to take an upper hand in respect of

sharing of the property belonging to the father of Arun

Kumar and first appellant or not is a question that has to

be established during the trial while considering the merits

of the matter.

19. Fact remains that the appellants were not

available to the investigating agency all through right from

the registration of the case on 23.03.2024. No doubt they

did approach the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory

bail and that request came to be rejected on 19.10.2024.

Admittedly, the petition itself came to be filed on

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

04.10.2024 and from 23.03.2024 to 04.10.2024 where

were the appellants is not forthcoming on record and no

explanation is offered as to why they did not cooperate

with the investigating agency.

20. Further, since the appellants have been shown

as absconding accused, they have to be treated as not a

law-abiding citizen which is sine qua non for entertaining

the anticipatory bail application.

21. No doubt, learned counsel placed reliance of

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha

Dubey and judgment of Alahabad High Court in Nitin

Tomar referred to supra.

22. In both the cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court and

Allahabad High Court were not dealing with the offence

under the provisions of SC/ST Act and accused were

alleged with the other IPC offences where there is no

specific bar to entertain the anticipatory bail as is found in

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

23. Further, facts of those cases are altogether

different from the facts involved in the case on hand.

24. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the appellants have not made out extreme or

exceptional circumstances to entertain their bail

application especially under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

25. For ready reference, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act

is culled out hereunder:

"Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

26. On careful reading of the above provisions, it

is crystal clear that if prima-facie materials are

available on record which would establish commission

of the offences under the SC/ST Act, entertaining the

anticipatory bail is impermissible or embargo in the

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would come into operation.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:6672

27. Evolution of law in interpreting the bar under

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shows that Courts are not

precluded from considering the material on record to

find out whether in a given set of facts and