Allowed

Smt Nagarathna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2022CRL.A/123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST (POA) Act against a rejection of anticipatory bail in a manual scavenging case, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court found no prima facie material linking the appellant to the specific caste-based offence, thus granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition was set aside. The appellant was granted bail in Crime No. 331/2021 subject to executing a personal bond and standard conditions regarding

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

¶1

Crl.A.No.123/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.123/2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.NAGARATHNA W/O KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT D NO.1732 MEDAR BLOCK PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 107 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI VENKATESH PRASAD R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY TOWN POLICE STATION PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶13

M.N.ADARSHA

¶14

S/O M.L.LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 107 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;

¶16

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S V/O/DT:28.01.2022)

¶17

Crl.A.No.123/2022

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC & ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL. MISC. NO.2545/2021 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CASE OF HER ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.331/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 5, 8, 9 OF PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT, 2013 AND SECTION 304 (II) OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1) (J) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT OF RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits

¶23

memo reporting service of notice to respondent No.2. Service of notice to respondent No.2 held sufficient. He is unrepresented.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Aggrieved by rejection of her petition for grant of anticipatory bail, the accused in Crime No.331/2021 of Periyapatna police station has preferred the above appeal.

¶26

On 18.12.2021, respondent No.2 filed the

¶27

complaint before Periyapatna police against the appellant

¶28

Crl.A.No.123/2022

¶29

¶30

as per Annexure-B alleging that on 17.12.2021 at 7.00 p.m. the appellant had employed scavenger for manually cleaning her toilet pit and that was reported in Vartha Bharathi Kannada daily newspaper. By such act, she has violated Section 6 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶31

On that basis, Periyapatna police registered first information report as per Annexure-A against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 8 and 9 of the said Act. She was arrested in the said case and learned Magistrate released her on bail as per the order Annexure-C dated 19.12.2021.

¶32

On 20.12.2021, the Investigating Officer

¶33

submitted requisition as per Annexure-D to include Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(j) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short). The requisition states that during the course of investigation, on 20.12.2021 he recorded the statement of one Rajesh,

¶34

Crl.A.No.123/2022

¶35

¶36

a scavenger deployed to attend manual scavenging. The statement further revealed that on the requisition of one Vishwa S/o. Mahadev, himself and one Madhu carried out manual scavenging work and suffered some health hazard. As per his statement, after taking treatment, he recovered and Madhu died in Kamakshipalya Hospital, Mysuru. On such requisition of the Investigating officer, Section 304(II) of IPC and Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST (POA) Act were included in the case.

¶37

The appellant apprehending her arrest in the said case filed anticipatory bail petition before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.2545/2021. The trial Court by the impugned order Annexure-E dated 06.01.2022 dismissed the said petition on the ground that specific overt acts are attracted to the appellant to attract the provision of Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act bar grant of anticipatory bail in such cases.

¶38

As per the Investigating Officer’s requisition itself, victim Rajesh revealed that one Vishwa deployed

¶39

Crl.A.No.123/2022

¶40

¶41

him and Madhu for manual scavenging. He does not speak the role of the appellant. Up to 20.12.2021 the names of the victims did not find figure in the investigation records. The death has occurred after three days of the alleged deployment for manual scavenging. The copy of the postmortem report made available for the perusal of this Court does not show any final report. The appellant was already arrested and interrogated. Therefore her detention for any further investigation is not required.

¶42

Under the circumstances, at this stage, there is no prima-facie material to show that the appellant had directly employed the victims for manual scavenging or monitored the same. Vishwa, who allegedly employed victim is not arrayed as the accused in this case. Therefore, at this stage, there is no prima-facie case to hold that the appellant subjected the victims for hazardous activities by way of caste discrimination.

¶43

Crl.A.No.123/2022

¶44

¶45

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj

¶46

Chauhan v. Union of India¹ held that when there is no prima-facie material to show that the act in question was caste based, Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act are not applicable. The major offences alleged under Section 304(II) of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years. The appellant is woman and Anganwadi worker.

¶47

Considering all these aspects, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellant is granted bail in Crime No.331/2021 of Periyapatna police station. If the appellant is arrested in the said case she shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶48