Dismissed

Smt Rashmi D R v. Sri K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024CRL.A/1016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informant-victim challenged a Special Court order granting regular bail on medical grounds to accused No.1 facing charges under IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and SC/ST (POA) Act. Reviewing medical records showing multiple ailments requiring treatment at higher centres, the High Court found the bail grant justified and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Rashmi D R Vs Sri K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1016/2024

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Smt. Rashmi D.R W/o K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi D/o Dasaiah Aged about 28 years Residing at No.610, 13^th main 14^th Cross, ‘B’ Block, 3^rd Stage Vijayanagar Mysuru – 570 017.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

(By Sri Akshay S, Advocate for Sri Srinivasa D C, Advocate)

¶11

AND :

¶12

Sri K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi S/o Sidda Shetty Aged about 52 years Residing at No.1191 Ghokale Road, 3^rd Stage BEML Layout

¶13

¶14

Rajarajeshwari Nagar Bengaluru – 560 098.

¶15

State of Karnataka By Vijayanagar Police Represented by The State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Hanumantharaya C H, Advocate for R1 Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP for R2)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 praying to set aside the bail order passed by the Hon’ble VI Additional District and Special Judge at Mysuru, in Special C.No.239/2023 dated 29.04.2024 granting regular bail to respondent No.1/accussed No.1 on medical grounds for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 204, 270, 313, 323, 376, 212, 420, 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, 1860, under Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act, 1961 under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶20

This Appeal having been heard and reserved on 29.10.2024 coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court delivered the following:-

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

¶23

CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

The informant – complainant has filed this

¶25

appeal praying to set aside the order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Spl.C. No. 239/2023 by the VI Additional District and Special Judge at Mysuru, granting regular bail to respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 on medical grounds in crime No. 1/2023 of Vijayanagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 204, 212, 270, 313, 323, 376, 420, 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the D.P. Act) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act).

¶26

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 2 – State.

¶27

¶28

3. The appellant – victim girl had filed a complaint stating as under:

¶29

(i). That she is a native of Mysuru and she applied for a job in a financial company belonging to accused No.1 through an advertisement published in newspaper. She was called for interview, was selected and her salary was fixed at Rs.14,000/- per month. Thereafter there were certain interactions between accused No.1 and victim and on 07.03.2019 accused No.1 offered her juice at office. After drinking the juice, the victim fell unconscious and after getting conscious she came to know that she has been sexually assaulted. Accused No.1 threatened victim with dire consequences if she informed the said matter to Police or anybody else and also told that he has close contacts with the Police. The accused No.1 promised victim that he will marry her. The marriage of the victim and accused No.1 was fixed in the house of Shashibhushan, Advocate. The said fact was not known to the father of the victim and she was visiting the office of accused No.1 from her father's house as an employee.

¶30

¶31

(ii). The victim signed certain cheques at the instance of accused No.1 to get certain financial benefits as the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste, certain blank papers were also singed by her and her mother including some stamp papers. The victim has also alleged that she got sexual disease from accused No.1. The accused No.1 took 200 grams of gold ornaments belonging to victim. During January 2020 to March 2020, accused No.1 took victim to various hotels at Mysuru and had sexual intercourse with her and he has taken naked pictures and threatened her. In March 2020 in an apartment at Kuvempu Nagar, the victim and accused No.1 stayed together for three days a week and accused No.1 concealed the mobile of victim. Accused No.1 demanded dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs, then the victim informed the said matter to her parents. Accused No.1 abused the father of the victim using caste name. During August 2020 the victim came to know that she is pregnant. Thereafter, the victim was forced to go to her parent's house as accused No.1 told her that he is going to Bangalore. The victim informed her father about giving 4 cheques to accused No.1 and her cheque book and pass books are missing. On 24.08.2020 the victim lodged

¶32

¶33

complaint at Devaraja Police Station. On 09.09.2020 the victim had undergone abortion at Shankar Nursing Home, Mysuru, as the child in her womb had not developed properly and she was infected with Herpes disease.

¶34

(iii). The victim further alleged that, accused No.1 contacted her and they stayed in various hotels at Mysuru till November 2021. From 22.11.2021 the accused No.1 and victim stayed together in an apartment at Sheshadipuram, Bangalore and the victim become pregnant for the second time. Accused No.1 forcefully got her aborted at Trinity Hospital, Sheshadripuram. The accused No.1 used to take the victim to all the programs organized by important persons. Accused No.1 abused the victim and harassed her physically. Thereafter, accused No.1 took the victim to Mysuru and took rental house at Dattagalli. Accused No.2 - Madhusudhan who is the office boy in the office of accused No.1 has joined in the house as house keeper. The victim forced accused No.1 to register the marriage, but accused No.1 was not interested in the registration of the marriage. Accused No.1 destroyed the bond paper signed by her mother. On 17.10.2022 accused No.1 threatened the

¶35

¶36

victim to have sexual contacts with the officers who are involved in Government Servants transferable activities. But the victim did not agree for the same and she stayed away from accused No.1.

¶37

(iv). On 26.11.2022 accused No.1 came to the house of the victim and told her that his mother has suffered heart attack and he wants to close the relationship with her. Accused No.1 came in an Innova car and four Police personnel came to her house and herself and her sister were forcefully taken to Cottonpet Police Station, Bangalore and then were taken to Women Welfare Centre. On 27.11.2022 during enquiry she came to know that accused No.1 has criminal background. On 29.11.2022 the victim was detained at Parappana Agrahara jail. On 13.12.2022 between 03.30 to 04.00 pm accused No.1 visited her and threatened her. On 19.12.2022 accused No.1 called the father of the victim and threatened about filing a case against victim. The victim further alleged that, accused No.1 is a married man and he has suppressed the same and married her and he has got sexual disease and that she also has got the same.

¶38

¶39

(v). Said complaint came to be registered in crime No. 1/2023 of Vijayanagara Police Station arraigning the appellants as accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 498-A, 504, 376, 270, 313, 323 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), and 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants and two others for the offence under Sections 120-B, 201, 204, 212, 270, 313, 323, 376, 420, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC ST Act, 1989. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 was in judicial custody had filed bail application in the case registered against him in Spl.C. No. 239/2023 and it came to be rejected by the Sessions/Special Court by order dated 19.05.2023. Said order had been challenged by respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 in Crl.A. No. 1029/2023 and this Court by judgment dated 01.09.2023 had dismissed the said appeal. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 had challenged the said judgment passed by this Court in SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court and subsequently the same came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No.1 –

¶40

¶41

accused No. 1 had filed bail application before the Special Court on medical grounds and the same came to be allowed by the impugned order.

¶42

Learned counsel for appellant would contend that

¶43

the offence against respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 are

¶44

heinous offences. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is highly influential person and he is not having any life threatening ailments. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 was earlier arrested under the GOONDA Act and at that time, he had no ailments. He further submits that in earlier bail application, respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 had not stated about his ailments and application filed subsequently is an after thought only to get bail on medical grounds. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 has been given treatment in the prison hospital and also at Government hospital at Mysuru and Bengaluru and treatment which is required for respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is available in Government Hospitals. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1,

¶45

¶46

in collusion with the Doctors, has got created records to get bail on medical grounds. He submitted that grant of bail on medical grounds should be exercised in a sparing and cautious manner and every nature of sickness will not entitle the accused to be released on bail unless it is demonstrated that the sickness is of such a nature that if the accused is not released, he cannot get proper treatment. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Himachan Pradesh High Court in the case of Imran

¶47

Khan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.MP (M) 225/2024, decided on 29.05.2024. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati , reported in AIR 2020 SC 5014 wherein order of granting interim bail on medical grounds for a period two months has been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is observed that the ailment with which the accused was suffering can be given due treatment and care while he is in

¶48

¶49

prison. He submitted that Type-II diabetes with which respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is suffering from is not life threatening and on that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Pankaj Mishra Vs. Union of India, B.A. No. 58/2023 decided on 28.02.2023 . On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order granting bail to respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 on medical grounds.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 would contend that the letter dated 18.04.2024 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru to the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru indicate that respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 requires treatment at higher centre. Letter dated 20.10.2024 issued by Dr. Suresh C., suggests the present medical condition of respondent No.1 – accused No.

¶51

1 that there is chronic disc Lesion of L4 – L5 with uncontrolled Diabetes and therefore, operation has been

¶52

¶53

postponed. He submitted that several Doctors have treated respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 which can be seen from the medical records produced by respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 and also secured by the Special Court and therefore, there is no collusion with the Doctors. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 was also suffering from ailments even prior to his arrest in this case. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Court wherein bail has been granted to the accused on medical grounds. He submitted that respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is on bail for last six months and there is no allegation of he violating any of the bail conditions. He submitted that the proceedings against respondent No. 1 under the GOONDA Act are of the year 2005 and at present there no single case is pending against him. He submitted that bleeding in urine is a life threatening for which respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 requires treatment at higher centre.

¶54

¶55

6. Learned HCGP submitted that respondent No.1 –

¶56

accused No. 1 has not violated any conditions imposed while granting bail to him on medical grounds.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶58

the Court has perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶59

The Special Court while passing the impugned

¶60

order granting bail to respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 on medical grounds has observed as under:

¶61

“33. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 in his arguments has submitted that the accused No.1 is suffering from multiple health issues, if the bail is not granted, it is nothing but lifethreat to the accused. So in order to save the life of accused No.1, it is necessary to allow the bail application and the said counsel has drawn the court attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Spl. L. Appeal in Cr.No.3325/2023 inbetween Salim Vali Mohammed Mojothi Vs State of Gujrat. In the said judgment, their Lordship held that looking to the medical condition of the petitioner that he was on ventilator, though now he has been discharged,

¶62

¶63

however because of non availability of advanced proper medical treatment in jail and considering the fact that the petitioner has been in incarceration of more than one year, 7 months, the bail application was came to be allowed. In the instant case also, it is the specific case of accused No.1 that he is suffering from multiple health issues, though took treatment in K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and different Hospitals in Mysuru and his health was not recovered, he was shifted to Bengaluru. Though he took treatment at NIMHANS and Victoria Hospital as well as present Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru, even then his health has not been recovered and that is the reason why has filed the instant application. Therefore, the judgment which relied by the learned counsel for the accused No.1 as stated supra, is applicable to the case on hand.

¶64

34. Now let me know the medical records which on record as the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison, Bengaluru in the letter dated 18/04/2024 which addressed to Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru has clearly mentioned that accused No.1 has been transferred from higher treatment on 28/02/2024 as known as case of Type II Diabetes Mellitus and he

¶65

¶66

was treated at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and was diagnosed as Diabetes Mellitus + Peripheral Neuropaty and he was referred to NIMHANS for further treatment. On 02/03/2024 he was referred to NIMHANS for complaint of leg pain and he was advised medications and investigations and got admitted to Victoria Hospital and took treatment almost from 15/03/2024 to 05/04/2024 for a period of 21 days as an inpatient and diagnosed as Acid Peptic disease with Type II Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropaty. Nerve condition study was done at Victoria Hospital which reports that:

¶67

Absent snapin bilateral sural nerves

¶68

Symmetric Sensory Neuropathy in bilateral Lower Limb.

¶69

USG Abdoman @ Pelvis was done at Victoria Hospital which reports that:

¶70

MRILS spine was done at Victoria Hospital which reports :

¶71

1) Sacralization of Lower Vertebra

¶72

2) Disc Dessications

¶73

3) Mild diffuse

¶74

4) Disc Bulge at L4-L.5 causing Thecal Sacridation

¶75

¶76

5) Right Neural Forannen Marroing abutment of right exiting Nerve root.

¶77

So, currently he is admitted to Central Prison Hospital at Bengaluru for severe back pain and leg pain and he is on treatment for Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Neuropathy and attender has been provided for his routine activities and requires higher treatment.

¶78

35. So if the letter which sent by the Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru clearly reflects the accused No.1 is suffering from multiple health issues which referred above as the learned counsel for the accused No.1 has filed the bail application and also sought for to call for medical records from the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru and Medical Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru, to know the health condition of accused No.1 to consider the bail application. Accordingly this court called for medical records from the Medical Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru and he has submitted the report before this Court as stated supra. So one thing is clear from the materials which submitted by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru to this court, that accused

¶79

¶80

No.1 is suffering from multiple health issues. That is the reason why in the letter itself has stated accused No.1 requires at higher treatment. In support of the letter he has also submitted the documents of Victoria Hospital and NIMHANS to show that he has taken treatment at Bengaluru Hospital for serious health issues of accused No.1. Thus the Medical records which placed by the Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru corroborates the arguments which advanced by the learned counsel for accused No.1. Therefore, if the medical records which placed on record are taken into consideration, at this stage, it is clear that accused No.1 is suffering from multiple health issues and by virtue of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which referred above, it is clear accused No.1 is entitled to bail on medical grounds and he can file a successive bail application on the grounds which are not urged in the previous bail applications.

¶81

9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has also

¶82

placed on record the letter dated 18.04.2024 issued by Chief Medical Officer, Central Prison Hospital, Central Prison, Bengaluru, addressed to the Chief Superintendent,

¶83

¶84

Central Prison, Bengaluru, wherein there is a mention that respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is admitted at Central Prison Hospital, Bengaluru, for severe back pain and leg pain. He is on treatment for Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetes Neuropathy. Attender has been provided for his routine activities and requires treatment at higher centre. As observed by the Special Court in the impugned order at paragraph No. 35 the documents called for by the Special Court from the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru, indicate that respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is suffering from multiple health issues and he requires treatment at higher centre. Respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 has also been treated at the Victoria Hospital and Nimhans, Bengaluru. The letter dated 20.10.2024 issued by Dr. Suresh C., M.S. (Ortho), Consulting Orthopaedic Surgeon, of City Bones and Joint Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital, Mysuru indicate that respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 is under his treatment for `Chronic disc Lesion L4-L5

¶85

¶86

with radiolipathy with uncontrolled Diabetes’ and he is advised to undergo surgery after getting fitness from the physician (Diabetiologist). Considering the said medical reports, respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 requires surgery for the said ailment at higher centre with special care. Considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has rightly passed the impugned order granting bail to respondent No.1 – accused No. 1 on medical grounds. There are no grounds made out to set aside the impugned order.

¶87

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

¶88

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

¶89

JUDGE

¶90

LRS.

Smt Rashmi D R v. Sri K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Rashmi D R v. Sri K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunath R v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Leena Abraham Vs Byju Joseph

Sri Kuvempu P U College Vs Smt Anishitha S

Sri Hari Prasad @ Hari Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankaregowda @ Shankara @ Thuppa Vs State of Karnataka

Vasu S C Vs State of Karnataka by