Allowed

Mr. S. Raju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024CRL.A/1716/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against rejection of anticipatory bail in a case involving Section 352 BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) offences. The court found the complaint did not state abusive words and prima facie did not attract Section 3(1)(r)(s), so the Section 18 bar was not engaged, allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Judge's order and granted anticipato

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: personal bond Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, appearance before Trial Court within 15 days, no tampering with witnesses.

Mr. S. Raju Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1716 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. S. RAJU S/O LATE SHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER, R/A HEBBALI AND AGRICULTURIST, ARECANUT GARDEN, NAGARAKATTE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577527.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. BHASKAR C R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSADURGA POLICE, CHITRADURGA, REP THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

SMT KAVITHA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY M T, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A RAMAJJANAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYANAGARA BADAVANE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶16

HOSADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 577501.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN., HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST POA ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.966/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 2ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS UNDER SEC.352 OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE SPL.,II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA REGSITERED BY THE HOSADURGA P.S.AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set

¶24

aside the order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.966/2024, by the Special, 2^nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder anticipatory bail petition of this appellant in respect of Hosadurga Police Station in Crime No.312/2024 registered

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶26

for the offences punishable under Section 352 of BNS and

¶27

Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act came to be rejected.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

The respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against appellant stating that this appellant/accused has given false information to her husband in order to create suspicion on her and she had earlier filed complaint against this appellant/accused and it is pending. She stated that on 06.07.2021 in the evening appellant/accused came near her house, took photograph and sent the same to her husband's WhatsApp and made a phone call to her husband stating that he has sent photo of his wife, who is present with some other person and told him that she is having some relation with other person and created suspicion by her husband and also abused touching her caste. The said, complaint came to be

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶32

registered in Crime No.312/2024 of Hosadurga Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant/accused apprehending his arrest has filed anticipatory bail petition and same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the averments of the complaint does not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and there is no specific word of abuse stated in the complaint. The respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint as this appellant/accused has issued notice dated 19.06.2024 regarding maintenance of sufficient balance for honouring cheque issued by her in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. He further contend that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and therefore the appellant is not required for further interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the averments of the complaint states that the appellant has abused touching the caste of the respondent No.2 and it clearly attracts 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. As there is bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail petition. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court

¶37

has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶38

Upon perusal of the averments of the

¶39

complaint, it is clear that there was a dispute between the appellant and the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the appellant earlier and it is pending. The documents produced by the learned counsel for the appellant indicates that the appellant has issued legal notice to respondent No.2 with regard to cheque issued by her in a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- asking her to

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶41

maintain sufficient balance and the said notice has been served on her. What are the abusive words used by the appellant/accused has not been stated in the complaint. Therefore at this stage, it cannot be said that there is prima facie case to attract offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act and therefore bar under Section 18 is not attracted. The other offences alleged against the appellant is not punishable for death or imprisonment for life. The charge sheet is already filed. The appellant/accused has made out a case for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail. In the result, the following;

¶42

:ORDER:

¶43

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.966/2024 by the Special 2^nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is set aside. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant/accused stands allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:44622 CRL.A No. 1716 of 2024

¶46

arrest in Crime No.312/2024 of Hosadurga Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶47

(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 Trial Court.

¶48

(ii) The appellant/accused shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Trial Court within 15 days from today.

¶49

(iii) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witness and shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶50

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶51

KLY

Mr. S. Raju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S. Raju 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

Shivanna Nayaka Vs State of Karnataka

Dhanush Kumar N @ Vale Vs State of Karnataka

Prajwal. P. a. Vs State by Govindaraja Nagar P S

Sridhar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Thara Vs Smt Pavithra

Sri Kuvempu P U College Vs Smt Anishitha S