Allowed

Smt Prema v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2022CRL.A/2052/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal questioning the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. Finding the complaint's allegations of road closure contradicted by the police sketch and inconsistent with delay in reporting, the Court held the prima-facie case was not forthcoming and set aside the lower order, granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.10.2022 set aside; appellants to be released on bail upon executing bond of Rs.50,000 and providing surety, subject to cooperation with investigation.

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2052 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. Prema,

¶8

W/o Chudamari, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.220/A, 2^nd B Cross, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075.

¶9

Smt. Saroja @ Sarojamma, W/o Mallesh, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.219/A, 2^nd B Cross, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075.

¶10

Sri Manjunath, S/o Late Malleshappa, Aged about 43 years, R/at No.1364, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075.

¶11

Sri Lokesh, S/o Late Malleshappa, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.219, 2^nd B Cross, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075.

¶12

Sri Mariyappa, S/o Late Malleshappa,

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

Aged about 39 years, R/at No.217, 2^nd B Cross, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075.

¶15

Sri Devaraj, S/o Late Malleshappa, Aged about 33 years, R/at No.217, 2^nd B Cross, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075. 7. Sri Chandrashekhar @ Chandra, S/o Late Malleshappa, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.217, 2^nd B Cross, 1^st Main Road, Reddy Palya, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560075. …Appellants

¶16

(By Smt. V.Nagamani, Advocate) AND:

¶17

State of Karnataka, By HAL Police Station, Bengaluru District, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.

¶18

Smt. Vinitha, Aged about 37 years, W/o Adinarayana, R/at No.98/1, 2^nd B Cross, Near Vinayaka Temple, Reddy Palya, Vimanapura, HAL Post, Bengaluru-560017. …Respondents (By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2 – served-unrepresented)

¶19

:: 3 ::

¶20

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71) and release the above appellant on bail in Cr.No.49/2022 of HAL Police Station, for alleged offence p/u/s 504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC and section 3(1)(z), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/St (POA) Amendment ordinance 2014, which is pending before CCH-71, City Civil Court, Bengaluru.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), questioning the correctness of the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.9513/2022, dismissing the appellants’ application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.49/2022 registered by the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and

¶24

:: 4 ::

¶25

Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(z) and 3(2)(v-a) of

¶26

SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellants are accused 3, 4, 2, 5, 1, 6 and 7 respectively.

¶27

Heard Smt. Nagamani V, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 has been served with notice of this appeal through the investigating officer. But respondent No.2 has not appeared before the court.

¶28

On 15.02.2022, the second respondent made a report to the first respondent police alleging the atrocities committed against her and her family by the appellants. Perusal of her report discloses that she and the appellants are all neighbors for the last 25 years. It appears that according to her, the appellants made an attempt

¶29

:: 5 ::

¶30

to see that she would vacate the house where she

¶31

is living and in that connection they tried to disconnect the water supply to her house. This attempt was made in the month of October, 2020 and at that time, she approached the police. The police summoned the second respondent and also the appellants and advised both of them to live peacefully.

¶32

According to second respondent, the

¶33

appellants did not stop troubling her and therefore on 20.01.2022, she filed a suit O.S.No.25147/2022 against the appellants in the City Civil Court and obtained an order of status-quo. Inspite of the said interim order, on 06.02.2022, the appellants closed the road with cement bricks and removed the pipes. Therefore the second respondent approached the police once again on 15.02.2022.

¶34

The court below rejected the application

¶35

for anticipatory bail by recording a finding that the

¶36

:: 6 ::

¶37

complaint made by the second respondent

¶38

discloses that the appellants abused her taking the name of her caste and closed the road causing obstruction to her movements. It is clear that the trial court has just considered the contents of the complaint made by the second respondent. If the court below had given a meticulous reading to the complaint itself, it would have been clear that the second respondent and the appellants have been residing in the same locality for the last 25 years and till the year 2020, there was no problem. It is clearly stated in the complaint that on 15.10.2020, the appellants made an attempt to see that the second respondent would vacate the house.

¶39

Learned High Court Government Pleader produces a sketch drawn by the police during investigation. If this sketch is perused, the allegation made by the second respondent that the appellants have closed the road by putting cement

¶40

:: 7 ::

¶41

bricks appears to be bereft of truth. The sketch clearly discloses bricks being put aside the road. Moreover if the road was closed on 06.02.2022, till 15.02.2022, the second respondent did not go to police station. The delay indicates probabilities of exaggeration in the complaint. Therefore the allegations require thorough investigation. At this stage prima-facie case to apply Section 18 of the Act is not forthcoming. Therefore impugned order cannot be sustained. In this view the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Appeal is allowed.

¶44

The order dated 10.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9513/2022 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶45

In the event of arrest of the appellants by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.49/2022,

¶46

:: 8 ::

¶47

they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Kmv/-

Smt Prema v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prema v. State of Karnataka by

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

Pavan @ Pavankumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Nagarajaiah, Vs the C B I

Lokesh M @ Loki Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmisha @ Lakshmish B S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravikumar @ Ravi Vs State by Hoskote Police Station

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka