Allowed

Sushma Chathra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2021CRL.A/1395/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. The court set aside the impugned order, noting that the allegations arose from a civil dispute over land and lacked specific causal links to caste grievances sufficient to deny bail under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 04.09.2021 set aside; appellants released on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with surety subject to specified conditions.

Sushma Chathra Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1395 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SUSHMA CHATHRA

¶9

D/O GURUMOORTHI CHATHRA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶10

KOLEKODU HALLIHOLE VILLAGE

¶11

KUNDAPURA TALUK

¶12

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201

¶13

SHAILA CHATHRA

¶14

W/O GURUMOORTHI CHATRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶15

KOLEKODU HALLIHOLE VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK

¶16

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201

¶17

GIRSHMA CHATHRA D/O GURUMOORTHI CHATHRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶18

KOLEKODU HALLIHOLE VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK

¶19

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201

¶20

… APPELLANTS

¶21

[BY SRI JAGADEESHA.B.N., ADVOCATE]

¶22

AND

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHANKARANARAYANA POLICE STATION KUNDAPURA REPRESENTED BY

¶24

¶25

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001

¶26

SRI VENKATARAMANA S/O MANJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHEDIGUNDI MUDURU VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI – 576 214

¶27

… RESPONDENTS

¶28

[BY SMT. LEENA.C.SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED]

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI, SITTING AT KUNDAPURA IN CRL.MISC.NO.652/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.79/2021 FILED BY THE SHANKARANARAYANA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTION 504, 323, 324 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.79/2021 of Shankarnarayana Police Station, praying to set aside the order dated 04.09.2021 passed in

¶33

¶34

Criminal Misc.No.652/2021 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura (Kundapura), whereby the application filed by them under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has been rejected.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶36

respondent/State.

¶37

Respondent No.2 has been served, however, there is no representation.

¶38

The complaint is lodged by one Venkataramana son of Manju, on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Section 504, 323, 324 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

¶39

It is alleged in the complaint that on 17.08.2021 at about 10.15 a.m., the complainant while

¶40

working in the land belonging to one Lakshminarayana Chatra, which was taken on lease by one Vasudevamaddur

¶41

¶42

under whom he was working, all the accused trespassed into the said land by removing the fence and abused him in filthy language insulting his caste. Accused No.1 threw some poisonous chemical and other accused persons assaulted him with clubs and also kicked him.

¶43

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that appellant No.2 is the wife of one Gurumurthy, who is no more. He is none other than the brother of Lakshminarayana Chatra. Appellant Nos.1 and 3 are her daughters. There is a civil dispute pending between herself and the relatives of her husband namely father and other brothers. An appeal filed by appellant No.2 against the order passed in FDP No.14/1992 by the Civil Court, is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Kundapura. He contends that, to settle score with appellant No.2, the said Lakshminarayana Chatra with the help of the complainant has lodged a false complaint making reckless allegations against the family members. He contends that there is no incident of abuse or assault which has taken place as alleged. He further submits, the

¶44

¶45

appellants are women folks. They are ready and willing to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, seeks to allow the appeal.

¶46

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that there are specific allegations in the complaint that appellants have abused the complainant, who belong to schedule caste, in filthy language insulting his caste in public view and in view of the prima facie case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., as there is a specific bar under Sections 18 and 18(A) of the SC/ST Act to entertain a petition seeking anticipatory bail. She further contends that the complainant has taken treatment in the hospital and the wound certificate also shows that he has sustained injuries. She therefore, seeks to reject the appeal.

¶47

I have perused the averments in the complaint. The incident has taken place on 17.08.2021 at about 10.15 a.m. It is alleged that all the accused trespassed into the land were the complainant was working and abused him as to why he is working in the said land inspite of telling him

¶48

¶49

not to come there and saying so they abused him taking the name of his caste and insulted him etc. It is further alleged that accused No.1 poured some poisonous chemical on him and other accused persons assaulted with clubs and also kicked him etc.

¶50

It is relevant to see that insofar as the abusive words used by the accused persons, the complainant has not specifically stated as to which of the accused abused him. On the other hand, an omnibus allegations are made stating that all the accused abused him in filthy language, insulting him etc. In the complaint itself it is stated that after the incident, one Vasudeva under whom he was working came to the spot and sent him to his house after consoling him and thereafter at about 5.00 p.m., he was taken to New Medical Hospital, Kundapura, wherein he was given treatment. The said Vasudeva is the lease holder of the land in question and it is the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that he had taken the land on lease from Lakshminarayana Chatra. The learned counsel for appellant has produced at annexure-D, a copy of the

¶51

¶52

appeal filed by appellant No.2 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Kundapura challenging the final decree proceedings in FDP No.14/1992 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge at Kundapura. Lakshminarayana Chatra is one of the respondent along with others in the said appeal.

¶53

It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that after the death of the husband of appellant No.2, her father-in-law and other brothers of her husband have deprived her of her legal share in the property and therefore there is a civil dispute and the present false case has been registered at their behest.

¶54

Appellant Nos.1 and 3 are the daughters of appellant No.2. As already observed, an omnibus allegations are made in the complaint that all the accused persons have abused the complainant in filthy language taking the name of her caste and insulted her etc. Insofar as the assault made by the accused are concerned, the wound certificate shows that the complainant has sustained certain abrasions which are mentioned as simple injuries. It is not alleged in the complaint that only on the ground

¶55

¶56

that the complainant belong to Schedule Caste, he was abused or assaulted by the accused persons. On the other hand, it appears that in view of civil dispute between appellant No.2 and one Lakshminarayana Chatra from whom the land was taken on lease by one Vasudeva under whom the complainant was working, the incident has taken place. Hence, at this stage it cannot be said that a prima facie case is made out so as to deny the appellants the benefit of anticipatory bail. In the said facts and circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Appeal is allowed.

¶59

The order dated 04.09.2021 is hereby set aside. Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to be released in the event of their arrest in Crime No.79/2021 of Shankaranarayana Police Station, subject to following conditions:

¶60

i) Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond each in a sum of

¶61

¶62

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a surety for likesum.

¶63

ii) Appellants shall appear before the Investigation Officer/trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and shall execute the bond as stated above.

¶64

iii) Appellants shall furnish proof of their address and they shall inform the Court if there is any change in the address.

¶65

iv) Appellants shall cooperate with the investigation and they shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶66

v) Appellants shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶67

vi) Appellants shall maintain peace and harmony.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

HB/-

Sushma Chathra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Chathra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Subramani Vs Sri v Harish Kumar

Rajesh Naik Vs v Ratnamma

Ravikumara Vs State of Karnataka

H P Mudlappa Vs H Narayana B E (Civil)

Mr. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Abdul Muner B Y Vs Smt Aleema B a