Partly allowed

Shri. Rajesh A.C. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2023CRL.A/1124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal appeal partly, setting aside the Additional District and Sessions Judge's rejection of anticipatory bail for Appellant No.2 due to lack of prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, while dismissing the appeal concerning Appellant No.1.

What did the court decide?

Appellant No.2 granted anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 1 lakh with surety; appeal regarding Appellant No.1 dismissed.

Shri. Rajesh A.C. Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1124 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. RAJESH A.C. S/O CHIKKA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AT: ARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE C A KERE HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 433.

¶10

SHRI THIMMAPPA

¶11

S/O CHIKKATHAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AT ARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE C A KERE HOBLI MADDURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 433.

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI ABISHEK N N, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADDURU POLICE STATION MANDYA – 571 401. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

MISS PAVITRA W/O ANANDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AT: ARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶20

C A KERE HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 433.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI RENUKARDHYA, R D HCGP FOR R1 SRI R PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS No.1 TO 2/ ACCUSED No.1 TO 2 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.No.96/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES OF SECTIONS 504, 323, 324, 354(B), 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) OF THE SCHEDULE CAST AND SCHEDULE TRIBE (POA) ACT 2015, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT MADDUR POLICE ON 29.03.2023 BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA IN CRL.MISC.No.341/2023.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2, praying to set-aside the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.341/2023, whereunder, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of Crime No.96/2023, Madduru Police Station, for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504 and 506 r/w Section

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶28

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) , came to be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

It is the case of the prosecution that, respondent

¶31

No.2 filed a complaint stating that on 21.03.2023 at 7.00 pm., her husband Sri.Anand went to the shop of accused No.3 in order to purchase groceries. At that time, accused No.1 was sitting there, seeing the complainant’s husband entering into the shop, abused him in filth language by taking his caste name and when the complainant’s husband Sri.Anand was proceeding towards the Colony, at that time, all the accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up quarrel with him, assaulted him with club. After hearing the noise, when the complainant came to rescue

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶33

her husband, the accused persons abused her in filthy language, pulled her nighty and outraged her modesty and all the accused persons gave life threat to her and threatened her not to lodge a police complaint.

¶34

The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.96/2023 of Maddur Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellants and accused No.3 apprehending their arrest filed Crl.Misc.No.341/2023 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which has been challenged in this appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the alleged incident has occurred on 21.03.2023 and a complaint came to be filed on 29.03.2023 and there is a delay of more than eight days in filing the complaint. The complainant’s statement has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, wherein she has not stated the names of the persons who quarreled with her and her husband. As per the wound certificate, the injured have taken treatment on

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶37

22.03.2023, but as per the averments of the complaint they took treatment on the date of incident. He further submits that on perusal of the prosecution material, there is no prima facie case against the appellants to attract the offences alleged against them.

¶38

The Special Court without considering the said aspects invoking bar under Sections 18 and 18(A)(2) of the Act has rejected their anticipatory bail petition, which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶39

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would contend that on perusal of the complaint, column No.17 of the charge sheet, statement of CW1 and the statement of other witnesses would clearly reveal the acts of appellant No.1 – accused No.1, who abused the complainant and her husband taking their caste name which attracts the offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the Court cannot entertain the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, as there is a bar under

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶41

Sections 18 and 18(A)(2) of the Act. Considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also argued in line with the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶43

The alleged incident has taken place on 21.03.2023

¶44

at 7.00 pm., and a complaint came to be filed on 29.03.2023. The complainant on hearing the sound of galata went to the spot. At that time, appellant No.1 – accused No.1 abused her in filthy language taking her caste name, held her hands, pulled her and assaulted on her chest and held her tuft and kicked her and made her to lie on the ground. In the complaint itself, there is a mention of the persons who were present and who pacified the quarrel. The statement of those persons have been recorded and they are cited as eye witnesses (CWs.3 to 5).

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶47

On perusal of the statement of CWs.3 to 5, it reveals that appellant No.1 – accused No.1 abused the complainant and her husband Sri. Anand in filthy language taking their caste name. Therefore, there is a prima facie case against appellant No.1 –accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. As there is a bar under Sections 18 and 18(A)(2) of the Act, the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., cannot be entertained. Considering the said aspect, the Special Court has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of appellant No.1 – accused No.1.

¶48

As per the averments of the complaint, statement of eye witnesses and statement of the injured does not reveal any abuse by accused Nos.2 and 3, touching the caste of the complainant or her husband. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against appellant No.2 – accused No.2 for the offence under Section 3 of the Act. Without considering this aspect, the Special Court has rejected the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶51

anticipatory bail petition of appellant No.2 – accused No.2. In the result, the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The appeal is allowed in part . The impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.341/2023, insofar

¶54

as appellant No.2 – accused No.2 is concerned, is set-aside. Appellant No.2 – accused No.2 is granted anticipatory bail and is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

(i) The appellant No.2 – accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶56

(ii) The appellant No.2 – accused No.2 shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute a bail bond and furnish the surety.

¶57

(iii) The appellant No.2 – accused No.2 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:28483 CRL.A No. 1124 of 2023

¶59

(iv) The appellant No.2 – accused No.2 shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶60

The appeal insofar as appellant No.1 – accused No.1

¶61

is concerned stands dismissed .

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Shri. Rajesh A.C. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rajesh A.C. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jayamma W/O Laxmegowda Vs State of Karnataka

John Phillip Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumurthy Vs the State by Govindarajanagar P.S.

Sri N C Thippeswamy Vs Kumari Neha T

Sri. Anil Vs Sri. Krishnappa

Sri Sunil Kumar Behara Vs the State of Karnataka