Allowed

Smt T Suma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2024CRL.A/1667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of an anticipatory bail petition under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the lower court erred in not considering prima facie evidence of a false case, delay in complaint filing, and lack of specific caste abuse allegations in the omnibus complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside. The appellants are granted anticipatory bail and ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Smt T Suma Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1667 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT T SUMA D/O V THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO. 559. 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE-560 050.

¶9

SHARATH CHANDRA R S@ SHARATH, S/O URESH CHANDRA, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O NO. 235/405, NEAR HOODI METRO STATION, HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY Smt. TARJANI DESAI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMANTHNAGAR P.S REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01

¶15

SMT. ASHA, W/O HARISH, AGED 27 YEARS, R/AT NO. 559, 4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 56050 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. S.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶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 1) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTING THE BAIL, DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.6876/2024 BY THE LEARNED XX ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-71) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC,.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 accused Nos.1 and 2 praying to set aside the order dated 19.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.6876/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), whereunder anticipatory bail petition of these appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 sought in respect of crime No.191/2024 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

Respondent No.2 has filed complaint against appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that there was quarrel between her and appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 on 16.07.2024 at about 10.00 p.m. and in that regard she had gone to the police station to file complaint on 17.07.2024. When she was came out from the Police Station and when she was on the road in front of the Police Station, appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her by taking her caste. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.191 of 2024 of Hanumanthanagara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the ST and ST Act. Appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehending their arrest have filed petition seeking anticipatory bail and same came to be

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶27

rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 wound contend that with regard to incident dated 16.07.2024 the appellant –accused No.1 has filed complaint against respondent No.2 and it came to be registered in Crime No.186 of 2024. She further contends that respondent No.2 has also filed complaint against appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 and same came to be registered in Crime No.187 of 2024. She contends that there is no allegation of caste abuse by appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said Crime No.187 of 2024. The present complaint came to be filed on 20.07.2024 as Police did not arrest appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 making a false allegation of the incident dated 17.07.2024. There is delay in filing the complaint and same itself indicate that the complaint is filed as after thought to harass appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2. The averments made in the complaint indicate that there is

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶30

omnibus allegation against appellants –accused Nos.1 and

¶31

2 of abuse caste and who has abused and what words has not specifically stated in the complaint. The incident has not taken place in view of public as no persons were present at the time of incident. There is no prima facie case for offences as alleged to attract bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act. On these grounds, she prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that on plain reading of the averments of the complaint that appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 have abused respondent No.2 by taking her caste and it attracts offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. Considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act learned Sessions Judge has rejected anticipatory bail petition of these appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶35

respondent No.1 would contend that there is abuse by appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 by taking caste name of respondent No.2 and it attracts offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. Considering the bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act, learned Special Judge has rejected anticipatory bail petition of these appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

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

¶37

There was quarrel between appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 on 16.07.2024. The appellant –accused No.1 has lodged the complaint against respondent No.2 and it came to be registered in Crime No.186 of 2024. Respondent No.2 has also filed complaint and it came to be registered in Crime No.187 of 2024. There is no allegations of abuse by taking her caste in the

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶39

complaint registered in Crime No.18 of 2024. The alleged incident has taken place on 17.07.2024 in front of the Police Station. The complaint came to be filed on 20.07.2024, there is delay of 03 days in lodging the complaint even though incident has taken placed in front of the Police Station. As there is case and counter case

¶40

between appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.2 registered earlier to this alleged incident, it appears that a false case has been registered against appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 as no action has been taken against appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.187 of 2024.

¶41

The accusation made in the complaint of abusing respondent No.2 by taking her caste are omnibus allegations. There is no specific allegations against each of appellants and what words each of them abused are not mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is prima facie case against appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 and for offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC

¶42

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶43

and ST Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not attracted. Without considering all these aspects, learned Sessions/Special Judge erred in rejecting anticipatory bail petition of these appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 which requires interference by this Court.

¶44

In the result, the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The appeal is allowed.

¶47

The impugned order dated 19.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.6876/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) is set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail petition of these appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 is allowed and they are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.191 of 2024 of Hanumanthanagara Police Station in event of his arrest subject to the following conditions:

¶48

i. Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:42820 CRL.A No. 1667 of 2024

¶51

the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

¶52

ii. Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from today and execute bail bonds and surety.

¶53

iii. Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate with Police in the Investigation.

¶54

iv. Appellants –accused Nos.1 and 2 shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶55

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶56

DSP

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Smt T Suma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T Suma 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

Dilip @ Chikkaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr K S Mukunda Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Saddam S/O Musa Yadahalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S R Poornima Vs Dr S Raviprakash

Sri a M Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka