Allowed

Sri Prathap C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024CRL.A/1583/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal under S. 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of bail. High Court held that castigation was not alleged by neighbor, custodial interrogation not needed. Appeal allowed; bail granted under S. 439 CrPC with personal bond and conditions prohibiting threats to witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Bail allowed under S. 439 CrPC subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and prohibition on threatening witnesses.

Sri Prathap C Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1583 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI PRATHAP C S/O. CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO. 370/10, BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, NEAR OMKARA ASHRAMA, THUNGA NAGAR, HEROHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560 091.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI M. DEVARAJA, ADOVATE FOR SRI. SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, KENGERI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

SRI. MALAR W/O. LINGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 196/1/2, 3RD CROSS, MAHADEVAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BYADARAHALLI MAGADI MAIN RAOD, BENGALURU CITY-560 091.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶17

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1441/2024 BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN REJECTING THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND GRANT THE RELIEF OF BAIL IN THE CASE IN CR.NO.0401/2024 REGISTERED AT BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, KENGERI SUB DIVISION ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(2)(V-A), 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND SEC. 498A, 306 OF IPC, 1860.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set

¶23

aside the order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1441/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereunder bail petition of this appellant -accused sought in respect of crime No.401/2024 of Byadarahalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶25

Code (Hereinafter referred as to “IPC” for brevity) and Sections 3(2)(v-a) and 3(1)(r)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred as to “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that marriage of the appellant –accused with deceased was performed on 29.04.2023 and it was love marriage. They stayed happily for two months. The appellant –accused subjected deceased –Preethi to mental and physical harassment and started abusing her by taking her caste. Due to the said harassment, the deceased was fed up and committed suicide. The case came to be registered against this appellant –accused on complaint being filed by respondent No.2 –mother of the deceased. The appellant –accused

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶29

came to be arrested on 06.06.2024 and he is in judicial custody. The appellant –accused has filed bail petition and same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant –accused would contend that the marriage of the appellant –accused with the deceased is love marriage, knowing well she belongs to scheduled caste he married the deceased and there is no question of abusing his wife by taking her caste. He further submits that the deceased might have committed suicide due to her loneliness. Land lady i.e. C.W.10 who is residing in neighbourhood of the appellant –accused has not stated anything with regard to abuse by this appellant –accused by touching caste of the deceased. He submits that now charge sheet is filed, this appellant – accused is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prays to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant –accused.

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶32

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the deceased belongs to scheduled caste. Even though the marriage of the appellant with deceased is love marriage, after marriage the appellant –accused started abusing deceased by taking her caste name stating that none of relatives are coming to home as he married scheduled caste girl. The deceased has recorded video of harassment given by the appellant – accused and sent to her parents. If the appellant –accused is granted bail there is threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶33

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶34

The marriage of the appellant and deceased was love marriage. The deceased and appellant –accused started residing in rented house belongs to C.W.10 –Smt. Shantamma. C.W.10 –Smt. Shantamma’s statement has

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶36

been recorded wherein she has not alleged any harassment by this appellant –accused to the deceased or abusing her by taking her caste. As charge sheet is filed this appellant –accused is not required for custodial interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the appellant –accused is granted bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses can be met with by imposing stringent conditions. The appellant –accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail.

¶37

In the result, the following

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The appeal is allowed.

¶40

The impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1441/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the appellant -accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C stands allowed. The appellant-accused is ordered to be

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:43108 CRL.A No. 1583 of 2024

¶43

released on bail in Crime No.401/2024 of Byadarahalli

¶44

Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶45

i. The appellant–accused 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.

¶46

ii. The appellant–accused shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶47

iii. The appellant–accused shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶50

DSP

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Prathap C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prathap 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 S R Poornima Vs Dr S Raviprakash

Sri a M Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Faizan Pasha @ Mohammed Faizan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. M. Nandini Vs Sri.G.M Umesh

Lokesh. B. S. Vs State of Karnataka

Lokesh G Vs State of Karnataka