Allowed

Smt Supriya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2022CRL.A/1048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's application for anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act, holding that obtaining a false caste certificate falls outside the specific provisions of the Act and attracts IPC charges instead, thus Section 18 does not bar bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties along with conditions including cooperation with investigation and no tampering with evidence.

Smt Supriya Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1048 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. Supriya W/o Munireddy Aged about 31 years R/at Gundalapalya Village Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk Kolar-563130.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Srinatha B.V., Advocate for Sri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka By Malur police Kolar District Represented by State Public Prosecutor Bengaluru-560 001.

¶12

Sri Raghu V Police Officer P.I.D.C.R.E., Kolar Unit Kolar-563101.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1; Sri C. Jagadish, Advocate for R2)

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to grant an order of anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest and set aside the order dated 03.06.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.450/2022 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in CR. No.138/2022 of Malur Police for the offence P/U/S 198,467,468,471 of IPC and Section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST (POA) Act and allow the appeal.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challenging the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.Misc.No.450/2022. The application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., was dismissed.

¶20

Heard Sri B.V.Srinatha, Advocate on behalf of Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

respondent No.1-State and Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶23

The allegation against the appellant is that she produced false caste certificate for securing seat in educational institution and obtaining scholarship. It is the argument of the appellant’s counsel that the appellant is ‘Vokkaliga’ by caste by birth, but she married a person belonging to ‘Bhovi’ caste, which is a scheduled caste and therefore she is entitled to claim reservation. He refers to Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990. But the learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri C.Jagadish oppose this argument by submitting that the marriage does not confer scheduled caste status on the appellant. The caste accrues by birth and she cannot claim benefit and in this view offence under Section 3(1)(q) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short) is made out and thereby Section 18 of the said Act is a bar.

¶24

:: 4 ::

¶25

In Crl.A.No.1361/2021, I have already held

¶26

that obtaining a false caste certificate by giving false information does not amount of an offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Act. However, such a person can be prosecuted for fabrication of documents and giving false information in accordance with the offences under Indian Penal Code. In this view, I do not think offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Act is made out at this stage. If the appellant has given false information for claiming reservation, she may be tried and punished under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code. Therefore I do not find Section 18 of the Act to be an impediment for granting anticipatory bail. Moreover the appellant is a woman and she is said to be suffering from cancer. In this view, appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Appeal is allowed.

¶29

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.138/2022, she shall be released

¶30

:: 5 ::

¶31

on bail subject to her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶32

(i) She shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

¶33

(ii) She shall attend the police station whenever her presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶34

(iii) She shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Kmv/-

Smt Supriya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Supriya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumanth @ Suman Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Komarla Feeds Vs N Sathish

M. Pradeep Vs K.Anupa

Sri Subramanya Vs Sri.H.v.Yogesh

Srikanth M Vs the State of Karnataka by

David Vs the State of Karnataka