Allowed

Meenakshi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2021CRL.P/897/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to three accused persons under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., involved in a POA Act and IPC case. The court held that prima facie ingredients of Section 3 of the POA Act were not made out, lifting the statutory bar to bail, and imposed standard conditions. The relief was allowed subject to bond and surrender requirements.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners accused Nos. 1 to 3, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh each, execution of bond, surrender within 15 days, attendance before IO every Monday for three mo

Meenakshi Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.897 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MEENAKSHI W/O. NAGAPPA GOWDA S., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

NAGARATHNA W/O. REVANNA GOWDA S., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶10

GUNDA @ RAJENDRA S.N. S/O. NAGAPPA GOWDA S, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLANDUR POLICE, MALLANDUR VILLAGE – 577 130, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

2. PREMA

¶17

W/O. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, C/O. COOLIE LINE OF S.B. LINGARAJU ALIAS REVANNA GOWDA, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, JAGARA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 130.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.1/2021 OF MALLANDURU POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 506, 504, 324 AND 307 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.1/2021 registered by the Mallanduru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC

¶24

¶25

and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act’).

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Smt. Prema wife of Lokesh, the Police have registered a case alleging that from last two years, the complainant and her husband were working in the land of Lingaraju @ Revannagowda and they were residing in the coolie line. On 03.01.2021, at about 6 a.m., when the husband of the complainant had gone to attend nature call, she was standing near the pond, at that time, the accused persons came there and when she enquired the accused regarding their presence, they started abusing her in filthy language by taking the name of their caste. Petitioner No.3 assaulted the complainant with club on her head, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 dragged and kicked her. When she shouted, Manja and Shivaiah who were neighbours came there and on seeing them, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, at the

¶27

¶28

instance of her husband, she was admitted to the hospital with the help of their land lord. After registering the case, the Police made hectic efforts to arrest these petitioners. Petitioners had also approached the Sessions Court for granting bail which came to be rejected. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that absolutely there are no ingredients to attract Section 3 of the Act in order to show that there is a Bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act. Because of previous quarrel between their landlord and accused persons, a false case has been lodged by Revannagowda through his employees. The injured is also discharged from the hospital. The injuries are simple in nature. The petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition mainly on the ground that there is a prima facie case made out against Petitioner

¶31

¶32

Nos.1 to 3 by taking out her caste which attracts Section 3 of the Act and thereby, anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable in view of Sections 18 and 18A of the Act. They are required for the custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶33

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that the complaint lodged by the injured-Prema stating that on 03.01.2021, at about 6 a.m., when her husband had gone to attend nature call and she was standing near the pond, at that time, the accused persons came there and when she enquired the accused regarding their presence, they started abusing her in filthy language by taking the name of their caste. On perusal of the complaint, no where it is stated that these accused persons were intentionally taken the name of the caste in order to attract the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act. By looking to the complaint, there is no prima facie material placed on record to attract Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any Bar under Sections 18 and

¶34

¶35

18A of the Act regarding maintainability to Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Looking to the allegation, after assault made with club on the head of the injured, she has taken treatment. The complaint was lodged on 03.01.2021 and the counter case has also been registered by accused No.3-Rajendra on 04.01.2021 against Pruthviraj, son of Revannagowda. Injuries are simple in nature. The complainant is out of danger. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, no prejudice would cause for the prosecution case. Hence, the following

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶38

The respondent – Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail in Crime No.1/2021 in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 504, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

¶39

¶40

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

(i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶42

(ii) Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

¶43