Allowed

Sri Harish Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.A/829/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 438. The court held that the appellant's refusal to marry due to caste differences, without evidence of insult, did not warrant denying bail under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside; the appellant was granted bail on Rs. 1,00,000 bond with conditions.

Sri Harish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.829 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Harish Kumar, S/o Anjappa, Aged about 31 years, R/o Gundammatta, Chaldiganahalli Post, Taluka: Srinivasapura, District:Kolar-563126.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Karnataka Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Avalahally Police Station, Hoskote Taluka, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Meghana V. Naik, D/o. Venkatesh Naik, Age: 24 years, No.226, Near Water Tank, Kithaganuru Village,

¶14

¶15

Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka, District Bengaluru-560049.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, R2 - Served)

¶18

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated 15.02.2021 dismissing his petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.291/2020 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and etc.,

¶19

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in Crl. Misc.99/2021. By the impugned order, the Sessions

¶22

Court rejected the application of the appellant under section 438 Cr.P.C. The offences invoked in the FIR

¶23

¶24

are punishable under sections 376, 114 of IPC and

¶25

section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Act.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the appellant and the High Court Government Pleader. The second respondent is served, but there is no representation on her behalf.

¶27

If the FIR lodged by the second respondent is

¶28

perused, it becomes clear that her age was 24 years on the date of FIR and that she came to know the appellant when both of them were working in a factory. They started loving each other and wanted to marry. The appellant assured of marrying the second respondent in the month of December and received some amount from the second respondent and her mother. It is also stated that the appellant used to have sexual intercourse with the second respondent

¶29

and they were living cordially. The specific allegation

¶30

¶31

is that when the appellant came to know about the caste of the second respondent, he refused to marry her saying that his parents would not agree for inter caste marriage.

¶32

It is clear that the appellant refused to marry

¶33

the second respondent because his parents would not give the consent for marrying a girl belonging to scheduled caste. But there is nothing to show that the appellant had intention to insult the second respondent just because she belongs to scheduled caste. Refusal to marry on the ground of caste may not amount to offence, unless the FIR discloses intention to insult a member of scheduled caste in the name of the caste. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prima facie materials for denying bail under section 438 Cr.P.C are not forthcoming. The appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶37

(ii) The order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, dated 15.2.2021 on application under section 438 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said application is allowed.

¶38

(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellant, he is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions : -

¶39

(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶40

¶41

(b) He shall regularly appear before the investigating officer whenever his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation. (c) He shall not get involved in any criminal offence in future.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

ckl

Sri Harish Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harish Kumar 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 Amjad Mohammad Shafi Vs State of Karnataka

Deepesh @ Deepu Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu N Vs the State of Karnataka

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha Vs State by

The Graduates Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri Kottada Malleshappa

P Manohara Vs State of Karnataka by