Allowed

Smt Jayalakshmi K.B. W/O Late Hanumanthappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020CRL.P/101132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowed. Court granted bail to petitioner accused No.2 charged with dowry harassment and alleged insulting caste under SC/ST Act, subject to conditions including bond and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000/-, cooperation with investigation, and not leaving jurisdictional limits without permission.

Smt Jayalakshmi K.B. W/O Late Hanumanthappa Vs the State… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101132 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K.B. W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O HARIKRUPA COLONY, KURUGOD, TQ:KURUGOD, DIST:BALLARI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.G.V. BHAT & SRI. S.S.YADRAMI, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BY KURUGOD POLICE STATION

¶13

REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶15

DHARWAD BENCH-580001.

¶16

SMT. A.C. CHANDANA W/O SHIVAPRAKASH K.B. AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O C/O GADILINGAPPA, 17^TH WARD, HARIKRUP COLONY, KURUGOD, TQ:KURUGOD, DIST:BALLARI-587103.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN KURUGOD P.S. CRIME NO.94/2020 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504,506, READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF

¶19

¶20

SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶24

Complainant has been served with notice as per the report submitted by the learned HCGP.

¶25

The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.94/2020 of Kurugodu police station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’).

¶26

It is stated in the complaint that the complainant’s marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 28.04.2019. At the time of

¶27

¶28

marriage, there was a demand of dowry for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and 4 tolas of gold. Initially, 32.480 grams of gold and Rs.15,000/cash for engagement expenses was given. Thereafter, the complainant’s mother paid an amount of Rs.2 lakhs through cheque on 22.04.2019. After the marriage, they led a happy marital life only for a period of 8-10 days. Thereafter, accused No.1 started harassing the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry and she was driven out of the house. Again, the complainant’s mother gave Rs.1 lakh and agreed to pay the balance amount by installments. The complainant’s mother started paying Rs.10,000/- per month from June 2019 to February, 2020, and totally paid Rs.90,000/-. When there was delay in payment, accused No.1 started harassing the complainant. On 4.12.2019 at about 11 p.m., accused No.1 came to the house in a drunken condition and abused the complainant by insulting her caste and

¶29

¶30

driven her out of the house. Again, on 6.12.2019, the complainant’s mother gave Rs.85,000/through cheque to accused No.1. However, not satisfied with the same, accused No.1 started demanding further dowry. It is further alleged that on 29.5.2020 at 8 p.m., both the accused abused the complainant in filthy language insulting her caste and assaulted her. The petitioner/accused No.2 held her tuft and pushed the complainant and tried to squeeze her neck. When the complainant started running, both the accused followed and assaulted her.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations are false. In view of the matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant against her husband as well as this petitioner/mother-in-law of the complainant. The petitioner is aged about 60 years. In the event of her arrest, she will be put to great hardship. He

¶32

¶33

further submits that the entire incident alleged by the complainant has taken place within the four walls of the house. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence has been committed in public view to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Appoji Reddy and another Vs. State of Karnataka , in Crl.P. No.2433/2020 and seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶34

Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently contends that both the accused have physically and mentally harassed the complainant demanding dowry. The petitioner as well as accused No.1 have abused her insulting her caste. Therefore, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, she seeks to reject the petition.

¶35

A perusal of the complaint would disclose that there is a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and accused No.1. Insofar as allegations under the SC/ST Act is concerned, the

¶36

¶37

contention of the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner is that the incident has taken place within the four walls of the house. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner and accused No.1 have abused her insulting her caste in the house and therefore, the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is not attracted.

¶39

The Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (2020 SCC Online

¶40

SC 159), has observed that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. In a similar circumstance, this Court by following the aforesaid judgment, granted bail to the accused.

¶41

Reading of the complaint does not indicate, at this stage, that the complainant was abused by the accused petitioner in public view. However, this fact has to be decided in due course. The petitioner is an aged woman. Hence,

¶42

¶43

I am of the view that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a) Petition is allowed.

¶46

b) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.94/2020 of Kurugod Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:

¶47