Allowed

Gulraj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2022CRL.A/132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal appeal, setting aside the trial court's rejection of anticipatory bail. Holding that Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act do not apply absent a prima facie case of caste-based discrimination in the complaint, the Court granted bail to the appellant facing charges of intimidation and assault.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside the anticipatory bail application is set aside; appellant is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.106/2020 pending as Spl.C.No.392/2020.

Gulraj Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.132 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GULRAJ D/O MOHAMMAD W/O. NAZIM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT ISLAMPURA VILALGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 123 ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI SYED MUZAKKIR AHMED, ADVOCATE-THROUGH VC)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

¶13

NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE

¶14

BANGALORE DISTRICT 562 123

¶15

(REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED

¶16

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

BANGALORE 560 001.)

¶19

NATARAJU S/O. KUMAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶21

R/AT BASAVANAHALLI

¶22

KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK

¶23

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 123 ...RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1, (PH) SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 H/S V/O DATED 4-2-2022)

¶25

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶26

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 25-11-2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1740/2021 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.106/2020 OF NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION PENDING IN SPL.C.NO.392/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 323,504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECIONS 3(1)9R)(S) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT.

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Learned HCGP submits memo with the report of

¶31

the investigating officer regarding service of notice to respondent No.2. Service on respondent No.2 is held sufficient.

¶32

Heard.

¶33

Aggrieved by the rejection of her

¶34

anticipatory bail petition, accused No. 1 in Crime No.106/2020 has preferred the above appeal.

¶35

Crime No.106/2020 was registered by

¶36

Nelamangala Town Police initially against the appellant

¶37

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶38

¶39

and another unnamed accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015.

¶40

After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet only against the appellant. On taking the cognizance, the Special Court has registered the case in Special Case No.392/2020. In the chargesheet, the appellant was shown as absconding accused.

¶41

Apprehending her arrest in the said case she filed Crl.Misc. No.1740/2021 before the trial Court for anticipatory bail. The trial Court, by the impugned order rejected the said application on the ground that Sections 18 and 18A of the Act bar grant of anticipatory bail.

¶42

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶43

¶44

The husband of the appellant and others were facing trial in Special CC No.1/2021 on the basis of he chargesheet filed by Kuduru Police in Crime No.258/2020 on the charge of committing the murder of one Lakshmipathi. The 2nd respondent is the brother of Lakshmipathi.

¶45

The allegations in the present case is that, due to the said ill will on 8-10-2020 at 3.00 p.m. in Basavanahalli village, the appellant abused the complainant and CWs 4 and 5 with reference to their caste and criminally intimidated them. It is further alleged that she assaulted CW1.

¶46

The incident said to have taken place on 8-10-2020 at 2.50 p.m. The complaint is filed on 11-10-2020 at 11.00 a.m. The FIR is delivered to the trial Court on 11-10-2020 at 6-29 p.m. In the complaint, there are no allegations of caste based

¶47

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶48

¶49

discrimination. There were only allegations of criminal intimidation and assault.

¶50

The Investigating Officer said to have recorded the further statement of the complainant on 11-10-2020 where he said to have made the allegation of caste based discrimination.

¶51

It goes difficult to accept that even after two days of filing complaint, he misses out the fact of caste based discrimination. Such omission in the complaint leads to the inference that there is no prima-facie case of caste based discrimination. Therefore Sections 18 and 18A of the Act have no application.

¶52

This view of the Court is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathviraj Chauhan Vs Union of India¹ and Rahna Jalal Vs State of

¶53

1 (2020) 4 SCC 727

¶54

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶55

¶56

Kerala² . The trial court without noticing the aforesaid facts and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mechanically rejected the application. Now the investigation is completed. Except for the trial, the detention of the appellant is not required for any other purpose. Therefore the appeal is allowed.

¶57

The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellant is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.106/2020 of Nelamangala Police station which is now pending in Special Case No.392/2020 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶58

If she is arrested in the said case, she shall be

¶59

released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶60

(i) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

2 (2021) 1 SCC 733

¶62

Crl.A.No.132/2022

¶63

¶64

(ii) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnish two sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance.

¶65

(iii) The appellant shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶66

(iv) The appellant shall appear before the trial Court as and when required.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

tsn*

Gulraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulraj v. 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

Sri Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Marlinga @ Mariyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha R Vs State of Karnataka

K Manmohan Rao Vs the State by S P Lokayuktha Udupi

Sri.Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar S Vs State by Bagaluru Police Station

Kengalaiah @ Thimmaiah Vs State of Karnataka