Allowed

Arunkumar C v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2022CRL.A/42/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail. It held that there was no prima facie case of caste-based assault but rather a commercial dispute, thus Section 18 of the Atrocities Act did not apply. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.12.2021 set aside and anticipatory bail granted to appellants subject to appearance, bond, and no tampering conditions.

Arunkumar C Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶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. 42/2022

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

ARUNKUMAR C, S/O CHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶10

PUTARAJU C S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKANAHALLI HANABE VILLAGE AND POST, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.K.A.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)

¶14

AND :

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF DODDABELAVANGALA POLICE STATION, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK

¶16

BENGALURU RURAL DIST-560 001.

¶17

¶18

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶19

SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OPPOSITE TO JALAPPA COLLEGE KAVERI EXTENSION BEHIND SIDDAGANGA RICE MILL DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST-561 203.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

9BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBE (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.2035/21 BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND GRANT THEM ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.158/21 OF BODDABELAVANGALA P.S.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Aggrieved by the rejection of their application for anticipatory bail, accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.158/21 of Doddabelavangala Police Station have preferred the above appeal. The said case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(r) (s) and (w) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

¶26

¶27

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶28

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), on the basis of the complaint of one 'x' (for the purpose of confidentiality, the victim is referred to as 'x' henceforth).

¶29

The gist of the complaint of 'x' is as follows:

¶30

Herself and her family had taken the house of the appellants on lease for a term of 3 years on payment of Rs.4.00 lakhs. The accused demanded and received another sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The accused, without returning the said amount, were dodging the matter. On 17.11.2021 in the morning, in the house of the accused when she demanded the repayment of the amount, accused abused her in foul language with reference to her caste. The 2^nd accused assaulted her with a sickle; both of them kicked her on her chest and stomach and tried to disrobe her.

¶31

The appellants apprehending their arrest in the said case, filed Crl. Misc.2035/2021 before the Trial Court for anticipatory bail. The Trial Court rejected the

¶32

¶33

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶34

application on the ground that Sections 18 and 18(A) of the Act bar granting of anticipatory bail.

¶35

Sections 18 and 18(A) of the said Act bar granting of anticipatory bail, provided, prima facie the offences under the said Act are made out. This view is supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRITHVI RAJ CHAUHAN .v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS¹ and RAHANA JALAL .v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER² . Therefore, this Court has to see whether the alleged acts of the appellants were the outcome of caste based discrimination.

¶36

There is a delay of more than 20 days in filing the complaint. The complaint itself shows that the alleged incident was the outcome of the commercial transaction between the appellants and the victim. She herself states that she was living in the house of the appellants since 3

¶37

1 (2020) 4 SCC 727

¶38

2 (2021) 1 SCC 733

¶39

¶40

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶41

years. There were no allegations of caste based discrimination earlier.

¶42

Learned HCGP submitted the case diary for the perusal of this Court. The wound certificate indicates that soon after the incident, the victim was examined by the doctor on 17.11.2021 at 3.05 p.m. In the complaint, the exact time of the offence is not mentioned. The time of the offence is interpolated as 11.30 to 12.00 p.m. The history is given as follows:

¶43

'Assault by Arunkumar by hand.'

¶44

The history of the 2^nd appellant wielding sickle or caste bias not revealed. The second appellant is not shown as the assailant in the wound certificate.

¶45

The statement of the victim was recorded on 17.12.2021 i.e. after more than one month. Though in the complaint and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim makes allegations of the appellants kicking her on her chest and stomach, the wound certificate does not reflect any injury on the said parts.

¶46

¶47

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶48

According to the appellants, the complaint is a counter blast for their demand to vacate the house. Under the circumstances, at this stage, there is no prima facie case of caste based assault or abuse. Therefore, there is no prima facie case to apply Sections 18 and 18A of the Act.

¶49

The major offence is under Section 354, IPC which carries maximum imprisonment of 5 years. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶50

Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Appellants are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.158/2021 of Doddabelavangala Police Station. If they are arrested in the said case, they shall be released subject to the following conditions:

¶51

(i) Appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶52

¶53

CRL.A.No. 42/2022

¶54

(ii) Appellants shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and furnish one surety in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Court;

¶55

(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required for the purpose of investigation/trial;

¶56

(iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

vgh*

Arunkumar C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunkumar C 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. Ashfaq Rasheed Shaik Vs Smt. Meena Ullas

Mr. Ashfaq Rasheed Shaik Vs Smt. Meena Ullas

Mr. Ashfaq Rasheed Shaik Vs Smt. Meena Ullas

Sethu Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayanada Vs State by Gubbi Police Station

Smt Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka