Partly allowed

Sabreen Taj v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024CRL.A/1857/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partially allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail. It held that while the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied to one appellant due to caste-based abuse allegations, it did not apply to the other two. Anticipatory bail was granted to the two appellants.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to appellants 1 and 3 in Crime No. 138/2024, subject to personal bond and appearance conditions. Appeal of appellant 2 dismissed.

Sabreen Taj Vs State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1857 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SABREEN TAJ

¶9

W/O ABDUL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD RESIDENT OF BESIDE MASJID, CHOLAGUDDA CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶10

ROSHAN BANU

¶11

W/O SYED JAFER SADIQ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD RESIDENT OF MASJID CHOLAGUDDA CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶12

SHAMSHAD D

¶13

W/O ISRAR AHAMED

¶14

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD

¶17

RESIDENT OF BESIDE MASJID, CHOLAGUDDA

¶18

CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI SRINIVAS N, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGAL KOTE POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶25

REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶26

SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE CHOLAGUDDA, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.928/2024 BY SPECIAL 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 504 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) 1989 AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is filed by the appellants -

¶34

accused Nos. 1 to 3 praying to set aside the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶36

928/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 sought in respect of Chitradurga Kote Police Station crime No. 138/2024 registered for offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act) came to be rejected.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for appellants – accused Nos. 1 to 3 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No. 2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶39

Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint

¶40

stating that on 24.06.2024 at 08.30 am she and

¶41

her grandson went to the ration shop to bring ration at Cholagudda and they were standing in the queue. One Sabreen Taj wife of Abdul (Accused No.1) was standing in front of her and she permitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 to stand in front of her in the queue. The complainant questioned the same and for that accused No.1 abused her in filthy language and assaulted her on her forehead. The complainant questioned the same and accused No. 2 abused her in filthy language by taking her caste name and accused Nos. 1 and 3 dragged her hair and assaulted her and caused injuries. One Manju son of Nagaraj, Janardhan son of Parashuram and Sharth son of late Ashoka pacified the quarrel. Said complaint

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶43

filed by the complainant came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. The appellants – accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed anticipatory bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶44

Learned counsel for appellants – accused

¶45

Nos. 1 to 3 would contend that there is a case and counter case. Counter complaint has been filed by accused No. 3 who is appellant No. 3 herein and

¶46

case is registered against respondent No. 2 and

¶47

others in crime No. 139/2024. He further submits that there is no allegation against appellants – accused Nos. 1 and 3 of abusing the complainant by taking the caste name and therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted.

¶48

On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶50

and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants – accused Nos. 1 to 3.

¶51

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

¶52

the respondent No. 1 – State would contend that on perusal of the averments of the complaint a prima facie case is made out against the appellants – accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC ST (POA) Act. As there is bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act, learned Special Judge has rightly rejected their anticipatory bail petition. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶54

On perusal of the averments of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 it is seen that

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶56

there is a specific mention that accused No.2 abused respondent No.2 in filthy words by taking

¶57

her caste name and insulted her. Considering the said aspect, there is a prima facie case against appellant - accused No. 2 for offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC ST (POA) Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the of the SC ST (POA) Act is attracted. Therefore, learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of appellant - accused No. 2 under the impugned order.

¶58

On perusal of the averments of the complaint there is no allegation against appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 of abusing respondent No. 2 by taking her caste name. The accusation against them is holding the hairs of the complainant and assaulting her with hands.

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶60

Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 for offence under Section

¶61

3(1)(r)(s) of the SC ST (POA) Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted against appellants - accused Nos. 1 and

¶62

Therefore, appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Appellants - accused Nos.1 and 3 have made out

¶63

grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail to them in the event of their arrest in crime No. 138/2024 of Chitradurga Kote Police Station.

¶64

In the result the following;

¶65

O R D E R

¶66

Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 07.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶68

928/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is hereby set aside only in respect of appellants - accused Nos. 1 and

¶69

Consequently, the appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 are granted anticipatory bail in crime No. 138/2024 of Chitradurga Kote Police Station subject to following conditions:

¶70

i. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶71

ii. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within 2 weeks from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

¶72

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:49824 CRL.A No. 1857 of 2024

¶73

iii. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶74

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶75

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sabreen Taj v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabreen Taj v. State of Karnataka by

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

Prasanna L a Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Padma Betageri W/O. Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Kalakappa Marad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ajaruddin S/O Abdul Hameed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Shakunthala R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar Alias Chandru S/O Madivalappa Mudalinganavar Vs the State of Karnataka