Allowed

Sri Chidambara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021CRL.A/425/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal appeal praying for anticipatory bail. The Court found no prima facie material to apply Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, rejected the argument that the appellant's absence was a bar, and ordered the release of the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties, conditioned to appear for investigation.

Sri Chidambara 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 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.425 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Chidambara S/o Radhakrishna Aged about 35 years, R/at No.1 SBM Layout, Srirampuram, Kuvemunagar, Mysuru-570023.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri Gautham S. Bharadwaj, Advocate for Sri Suyog Herele E., Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Through Women Police Station, Mysuru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Ms. Arpitha, W/o Chidambara Aged about 34 years, R/at Goduthai Nagar, Jevargi Main Road, Kalburgi-585107.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri P.Thejesh, HCGP for R1,

¶16

Sri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate for R2)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.330/2020 passed by the Learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru in so far as rejecting the anticipatory bail application of appellant herein is concerned (produced at document No.3) and etc.,

¶19

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission, this day, through video conferencing, the Court made the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru rejected the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.330/2021 by his order dated 01.03.2021.

¶22

Heard Sri. Gautham S. Bharadwaj, learned

¶23

counsel for the appellant, Sri. P.Thejesh, High Court Government Pleader and Sri. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶24

¶25

On 7.2.2021, FIR came to be registered

¶26

against the appellant and his parents in relation to offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act’) r/w 34 IPC. The allegations found in the FIR are that, the 2^nd respondent is a scheduled caste, that when she was working in a private bank at Pune, she had registered her name in the matrimonial web-site called ‘Jeevansathi’ and at that time the appellant contacted her through telephone and showed his interest to marry her. Thereafter it is stated that during marriage negotiations, there was demand from the appellant and his parents for dowry pursuant to which appellant was given a gold ring, a chain, a bracelet, clothes, shoes and silver articles. The marriage took

¶27

¶28

place on 10.05.2020 in a farm house at Kalluru. It is also stated that the 2^nd respondent transferred Rs.7,50,000/- to the bank account of the appellant. Then the parents of the appellant insisted on additional dowry and she was forced to bring dowry from her parent’s house. The accused persons started ill treating her saying that she belonged to a caste called Dhor and they were not eating the food cooked by her. They asked her to live separately and not to touch any articles in the house. When she brought this matter to the notice of the appellant, he told her that his parents would stop ill-treating her if she would bring Rs.10,00,000/- and jewellery from her parents house. On 27.06.2021, she was taken to the farm house at Kalluru where she was beaten and threatened. Then she was sent to her parents’ house on 29.06.2021 during Ashadamasa. Like this several allegations are made in the FIR stating that all the

¶29

¶30

accused insulted and subjected her to ill-treatment just because she belonged to Dhor community, which

¶31

is classified as scheduled caste.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant argues

¶33

that the allegations made against the appellant in relation to the offences punishable under the Act are all false and FIR registered by the respondent no.2 is nothing but a counter blast to an earlier complainant lodged by the appellant on 8.12.2020. Actually the police did not take action pursuant to his complaint and that they issued NCR. Taking me through a paragraph in the said complaint, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the father and the brother of respondent no.2 went to the house of the appellant and threatened saying that they would take action against him making use of their caste factor and that they will also bring the members of the Dalita Sangharsha Samithi and hold a dharana in front of his

¶34

¶35

house. They threatened to register a case under the Atrocities Act. Further he refers to some documents purporting to be a profile of the 2^nd respondent registered in an on-line matrimonial bureau called Jeevansathi in which the details of the 2^nd respondent are given. It shows the name and age of the 2^nd respondent, her caste is shown as Veerashaiva and till 7.12.2020 he did not know that respondent no.2 belonged to scheduled caste. It is only in her FIR dated 7.2.2021 she went to the extent of making baseless allegations that she was subjected to insultation in the name of caste. Therefore prima facie inference can be drawn that the allegations of appellant going to the extent of insulting 2^nd respondent in the name of his caste is baseless. He also refers to another document dated 16.3.2021 in which the caste of the 2^nd respondent is shown as Dhor. This document is collected by the investigating

¶36

¶37

officer during investigation. The appellant was not aware of this document. If in this document her caste is mentioned as Dhor, it cannot be said that the appellant was aware of the fact that the 2^nd respondent belonged to scheduled caste on the date of marriage. Therefore absolutely there is no meterial to arrive at a conclusion that there was caste based attack on the 2^nd respondent. In these circumstances Section 18 of the Act does not apply. He argues for allowing the appeal.

¶38

The Government Pleader submits that the appellant has remained absconded since the date of registration of FIR and that there was clear allegation that appellant and his parents subjected the 2^nd respondent to atrocity since she belonged to scheduled caste. In this view Section 18 of the Act is a bar.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also

¶41

submits that the conduct of the appellant in not being available for investigation since the date of registration of FIR as against him itself is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. The document that the appellant refers to now is a false document. The 2^nd respondent never stated that she belongs to Veerashaiva caste. Knowing very well that respondent no.2 belonged to scheduled caste, the appellant came forward to marry her and after the marriage the appellant and his parents started harassing her. She was treated as an untouchable in the house; there is demand for dowry. There is a case for investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted, the appellant has made an attempt to take away life of respondent no.2. In the light of these serious allegations, there is no case for granting anticipatory bail.

¶42

¶43

Now if the documents that the appellant has produced are seen, the first document dated 15.1.2019, the profile of the 2^nd respondent published

¶44

in the matrimonial bureau, Jeevansathi, shows that her caste is Veerashaiva. There is no dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the 2^nd respondent took place on 10.05.2020. Though the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent disputed this document, but it can be stated that his argument cannot be accepted for the reason that unless details are given by a party, no matrimonial bureau will publish those details in the website. From this document inference can be drawn that on the date when marriage took place between the appellant and the 2^nd respondent, the impression that the appellant had was that respondent no.2 belonged to Veerashaiva caste. The 2^nd respondent relied upon another profile posted in Jeevansathi.com and this

¶45

¶46

bears the dated 16.3.2021. In this profile her caste is shown as Dhor, which comes under the category of scheduled caste. Even assuming that appellant was aware of the caste of the 2^nd respondent before the marriage, it can be very clearly stated that having married a girl of scheduled caste, he would not have had such an intention to insult her. If really he had such a feeling, he would not have married her. Therefore this line of argument of the 2^nd respondent’s counsel can be ruled out. The facts and circumstances do not show that the appellant was aware of the caste to which the 2^nd respondent actually belongs till 7.12.2020. It was on 8.12.2020, the appellant made a complaint to the police alleging that on 7.12.2020 at about 6.00 p.m., the 2^nd respondent’s father and brother came near his house and threatened of taking action since they belong to scheduled caste. The police did not take any action

¶47

¶48

on the complaint. However if this allegation is taken to be true, it can be clearly stated that the father and brother of the 2^nd respondent might have made an attempt to take advantage of their caste.

¶49

Of course there is allegation that the appellant

¶50

and his parents demanded for dowry. In this regard, investigation is necessary. But what is to be mentioned importantly is that for the allegations with regard to insulting the 2^nd respondent in the name of caste, there are no prima facie materials to apply Section 18 of the Act for denying anticipatory bail.

¶51

It is stated that the petitioner has remained absconded since the date of registration of FIR against him. May be with a fear of being apprehended, he might have remained away from the process of law. That cannot be a reason for denying anticipatory bail, abscondance of an accused becomes a factor for

¶52

¶53

denying bail if there are sufficient material indicating commission of offence. If the presence of the appellant is required for investigation, he may be directed to appear before the investigating officer to see that investigation is completed at the earliest. If he fails to abide by any condition, respondent no.1 can apply for cancellation of bail. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Special Court has committed an error in not granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, the finding is to be reversed and this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order : -

¶54

Appeal is allowed. The order of the Special Court in Crl.Misc.No.330/2021 is set aside. The application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of appellant by the 1^st respondent in connection with FIR No.10/2021 for the offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

¶55

¶56

Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant shall be released on bail by obtaining from him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions:

¶57

i. He shall appear before the investigating officer whenever his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶58

ii. He shall not threaten the witnesses and make any attempt to destroy the evidence.

¶59

iii. He shall not get involved in any offence in future.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sri Chidambara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chidambara 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 Rudresh Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesha M K Vs State of Karnataka

Suhail @ Noor Mohammed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. S. N. Vinoda Vs Naveen Kumar. K

Smt. Thamaraiselvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh K E Vs Smt Madhu