Allowed

Mrs T M Sunitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022CRL.A/319/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It held that no prima facie case was made out under the SC/ST (POA) Act as allegations did not prove abuse was solely due to caste, relying on Hitesh Verma.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in the event of arrest; previous order setting aside bail rejected set aside.

Mrs T M Sunitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.319 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS T M SUNITHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O SUNIL KUMAR B M, R/AT GANDHINAGAR, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252. ...APPELLANT

¶9

[BY SRI.SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI R RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE] AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VIRAJPET TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶11

SRI SUCHENDRA H R, S/O RAMU H A, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, R/O SHIVAKERI, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

(THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PLACED EX-PARTE BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT AND HENCE, NOTICE TO HIM MAY BE DISPENSED WITH)

¶13

[BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP FOR R1 R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5008/2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER ENLARGING THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN FIR BEARING CR.NO.04/2022 DATED 13.01.2022, REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - VIRAJPET POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT (SITTING AT VIRAJPET) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT BILL, 2015 ACT AND SECTION 506 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in Cr.No.4/22 registered by Virajpet Town Police Station, praying to set aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, (sitting at Virajpet) in Crl.Mis.5008/2022, rejecting his petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

and consequently to grant him anticipatory bail.

¶20

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned HCGP for respondent/State and perused the material on record.

¶21

¶22

Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has

¶23

been served but there is no representation.

¶24

FIR is registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, for offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 (SC/ST (POA) Act for short).

¶25

It is alleged in the complaint that on 09.01.2022 at around 11.00 a.m. when the complainant was involved in a road work sanctioned by the Town Panchayat at Shivakeri Burial Ground, the accused came and picked up quarrel with him and insulted him by referring to his caste name as “Holeya Madiga Gulamaru” in front of all the villagers who were present there and also threatened to kill him by using JCB. It is further averred in the complaint that one Puttaswamy who was present videographed the incident in his mobile phone and then

¶26

¶27

made it viral by sending the said video clip to all the groups.

¶28

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the

¶29

appellant would contend that the entire allegations are false and it is a concocted story. He contends that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. He contends, it is not alleged that only on the

¶30

ground that the complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste, the offence was committed. The appellant is a woman and she is a Councilor and President of Standing Committee, Town Panchayat, Virajpet and due to rivalry, a false case has been registered against the appellant after an inordinate delay.

¶31

The learned Senior counsel has filed a memo

¶32

along with the copy of NCR / acknowledgment dated 10.01.2022 issued by Virajpet Town Police in NCR No.06/2021, the copy of FIR as well as the copy of

¶33

¶34

complaint dated 13.01.2022 registered against the first informant and others.

¶35

It is the contention of the learned Senior

¶36

counsel that on 09.01.2022 the first informant abused and threatened one Puttaswamy H.N. and his family members and tried to assault them. He submits in this regard NCR No.06/2021 was registered on a complaint filed by Puttaswamy H.N. It is his contention that the present complaint filed by respondent No.2, which is after three days is a counter blast as the appellant is a Councilor and also President of the Standing Committee of Virajpet Town Panchayat. The incident occurred when the road work sanctioned by the Town Panchayat was in progress. He contends that in the said facts and circumstances the ingredients of the offence alleged under the SC/ST (POA) Act are not made out and therefore, there is no bar to grant anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶37

¶38

Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another

¶39

reported in 2020 (10) SC 710. It is his further contention that though it is alleged in the complaint that the incident was videographed and circulated, no such video clippings have been collected by the police and the complainant is also not co-operating with the investigation. He, therefore, contends that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge and the reasons assigned to reject the petition seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that there is Bar to entertain a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not proper and accordingly, sought to allow the appeal.

¶40

The learned HCGP has vehemently contended

¶41

that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant, since in the complaint itself it is stated that the appellant herein has abused him in public view by taking the name of his caste etc. He, therefore, contends that in view of Section 18A of SC/ST (POA) Act, the

¶42

¶43

learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶44

The incident is alleged to have taken place on 09.01.2022 at about 11.30 am. It is alleged that when the complainant was engaged in doing road work at Shivakeri Burial Ground, which was sanctioned by the Town Panchayat, the appellant herein namely the Councilor as well as the President of the Standing Committee picked up quarrel with him and abused him taking his caste name as “Holeya Madiga Gulamaru” in front of all the villagers who were present there and also threatened to kill him by using JCB. The complaint is lodged on 13.01.2022 at about 4.30 p.m., which is after four days. Though it is averred in the complaint that one Puttaswamy H.N. videographed the incident and made it viral in all gropus etc., however, the said video clips have not been collected during the course of investigation by the police.

¶45

¶46

It is relevant to see that in respect of the same incident, a NCR has been registered in No.06/2021 by the police on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Puttaswamy H.N. against the first informant. It is alleged therein that the complainant herein was doing road work using JCB in the property which was in the possession of the said Puttaswamy H.N. and when he questioned about the same, the complainant herein abused him in filthy language and tried to assault him and his family members etc. Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sushmitha T, President of Virajpet Town Panchayat, in respect of an incident which took place on 10.01.2022 at about 3.00 pm, a case was registered against the first informant herein and two others. It is alleged that on 10.01.2022 one Seethamma, a resident of Shivakeri, complained to her that at about 3.30 p.m, the first informant herein and another by name Gajendra have encroached upon her property, while doing the road work. Immediately when she along with the appellant herein went to enquire, first informant and others stopped them

¶47

¶48

and abused them in filthy language and also assaulted and threatened them etc. The said case is registered against first informant/respondent No.2 herein and others for offences punishable under Sections 504, 354, 354A, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

¶49

In the above facts and circumstances and also

¶50

in view of delay in lodging the complaint, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case made out against the appellant for having committed the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶51

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) has observed that all insult or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe. In the case on hand, even accepting the allegations in the FIR, it cannot be said that the first informant was abused only on the ground that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste / Scheduled

¶52

¶53

Tribe. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment to entertain the appeal and to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, (sitting at Virajpet) in Crl.Mis.5008/2022 is set aside. In the event of arrest of the appellant/accused in Crime No.4/2022 of Virajpet Town Police Station, she shall be released subject to following conditions:

¶56

i. Appellant shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶57

ii. Appellant shall co-operate with the investigation and make herself available

¶58

¶59

for the purpose of investigation whenever required.

¶60

iii. Appellant shall furnish proof of her correct residential address and shall inform the I.O./Court, if there is any change in the address.

¶61

iv. Appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence / witnesses in any manner.

¶62

v. Appellant shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

JUDGE

¶65

Mrs T M Sunitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs T M Sunitha 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

Mr Prashanth S D Vs State of Karnataka

S. Kumar S/O Srikantaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Showkath Ali Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Krishna C Vs the State of Karnataka

Manu J S @ Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thippeshi @ Thippeswamy Vs State of Karnataka by