Allowed

Smt Anupama Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021CRL.A/1564/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the Sessions Court order rejecting anticipatory bail. The Court set aside the earlier order and granted bail, finding that the First Information Report lacked corroboration and did not make out a prima facie case against the appellant under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C was allowed, granting release on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and undertaking conditions.

Smt Anupama Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1564 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. ANUPAMA SHETTY W/O. SRI. UDAYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. SATWADI, MUDALAKATTE, KUNDAVARA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE]

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KUNDAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, KUNDAPURA - 576 201. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

SRI. SURESH BABU S/O. SRI. BABU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT. SATWADY, KANDAVARA VILLAGE, UDUPI - 576 201 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

[BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1 (PH) SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH)]

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.09.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

¶17

¶18

SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT KUNDAPURA, UDUPI IN CRL.MISC.NO.659/2021 AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT (ACCUSED NO.2) IN CR.NO.58/2021 REGISTERED BY KUNDAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(s) AND 3(1)(zc) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT KUNDAPURA, UDUPI.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Appellant/accused No.2 has preferred this appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) amended Act 2015 praying to set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Kundapura at Udupi, in criminal miscellaneous case No.659/2021 and to release her, in the event of her arrest in crime No.58/2021 of Kundapura rural police station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 (herein referred to as SC/ST Act).

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶23

¶24

The complaint is lodged by one Sri. Suresh Babu on 26.08.2021 stating that, Kandavara Grama Panchayath as well as Zilla Panchayath have passed resolutions to provide drinking water under Jalajeevan Mission Scheme to the persons who have constructed their houses in survey house No.152/P1. On 25.08.2021 at around 11.15 a.m one Ramachandra Sherigar (accused No.1), appellant (accused No.2) and Jayashree Shetty (accused No.3) objected for providing water to the members of schedule caste, openly declaring that drinking water will not be provided to them and also claimed that they will remove the water pipes and disconnect the water connection and also abused them in public.

¶25

Apprehending arrest, the appellant along with

¶26

accused Nos.2 and 3 approached the Sessions court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 24.09.2021.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is innocent and the entire allegations are false. He contends that no prima facie case has been made out against the appellant as there is no specific allegation of abusing the

¶28

¶29

caste of the complainant. It is further contended that the appellant has not opposed any scheme as alleged, but with an intention to harass her, false case has been foisted against her. He contends that under Jalajeevan Mission Scheme, the appellant and other panchayat members have provided water facility in the area. However, few persons have constructed their house in the Government land without obtaining any license from the panchayath. As the appellant and other members of the panchayath have requested for providing house No's, the present case has been registered against them with an ulterior motive. He has further contended that even on an earlier occasion, a false case was registered against the appellant and several others and the police after investigation have filed a B-final report. He submits that the appellant is a respectable person and she is a permanent resident of Satwadi, Kandavara village in Kundapura taluk having deep roots in the society and if the relief sought is not granted then she will be arrested and humiliated in the guise of investigation. He submits that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions and seeks to allow the appeal.

¶30

¶31

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶32

contends that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant as her name appears in the first information report and in view of the bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the SC/ST Act, appellant is not entitled for anticipatory bail and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the appellant. He has contended that the appellant and other accused persons have publicly opposed to provide drinking water to the members of scheduled caste residing in the said area and they have thus socially boycotted them, which is a serious offence. He contends that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(zc) of the SC/ST Act, have been clearly made out and thus in view of the serious nature of the offence and the bar created for granting anticipatory bail, the appellant is not entitled for the relief she has sought in the appeal. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the appeal.

¶34

I have carefully perused the contents of the first information report lodged by the complainant before the respondent-Police on 26.08.2021. It is alleged that on

¶35

¶36

25.08.2021 at about 11.15 a.m., in front of Kandavara Panchayat office, one Ramachandra Sherigar (accused No.1) along with accused Nos.2 and 3 abused in public stating that they have objections for providing drinking water to the members of scheduled caste and claimed that they will cut and remove the water pipes. A reading of the complaint would show that it is accused No.1 who took objection for providing drinking water and claimed that he will remove the water pipes. However, it is added that he along with accused Nos.2 and 3 claimed that water connection will be disconnected.

¶37

In the complaint itself it is mentioned that after

¶38

discussing with the advocate and others, the complaint was prepared and filed. In the complaint it is not stated that who were the persons present when the incident took place. As per the statement of one Ranganath, whose statement was recorded in the course of investigation, no such incident or quarrel has taken place. The witnesses whose statements are recorded have not alleged against the appellant that she has either abused the complainant by insulting his caste or objected for providing drinking water to the members of schedule caste. In the said facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against the appellant attracting the

¶39

¶40

provisions of SC/ST Act. However, it is for the prosecution to establish its case in due course. The impugned order therefore deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed.

¶43

The order dated 24.09.2021 passed in criminal

¶44

miscellaneous case No.659/2021 on the file of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, sitting at Kundapura at Udupi is hereby set aside.

¶45

The application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by appellant/accused No.2 in Sessions Court is allowed. Appellant/accused No.2 in crime No.58/2021 of Kundapura rural police station is ordered to be released in the event of her arrest, subject to following conditions.

¶46

i) Appellant/accused No.2 shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for like-sum.

¶47

¶48

ii) She shall furnish proof of her residential address and shall inform the I.O/Court, in case of change in the address.

¶49

iii) She shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly.

¶50

iv) She shall make herself available for the purpose of investigation and shall co-operate with the investigation; and

¶51

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

¶52

IA.No.1/2021 is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Smt Anupama Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anupama Shetty 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

H. M. Naveen Vs State of Karnataka

Shivamurthy @ Murthy Vs Sate of Karnataka

H Sharath Kumar Vs State by

Sri. Lokesh Vs Sri. Nagaraja

Sundarlinge Gowda @ Pille Vs State of Karnataka through Koppa Police

M/S. Paxal Surgicals Vs Sri. Ashok Kumar