Allowed

Smt. Shakunthala R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024CRL.A/2108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail for an appellant accused. The impugned order rejecting the antecedent petition was set aside, and bail was granted subject to specific bond conditions and prohibitions on threatening witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted anticipatory bail in crime No.109/2024 subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-, appearance within two weeks, refrainment from threatening witnesses, and attendance at court hearin

Smt. Shakunthala R Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2108 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA R W/O. C.DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BUSINESS R/O 4^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS YALLAMMANAGARA RING ROAD DAVANAGERE TOWN – 577 006.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA EXTENSION POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

SMT. SUNITHA R W/O. SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS TECNICIAN, R/AT AMBEDKAR BEEDI RAJENDRA NAGAR NEAR STADIUM, CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI A VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CRIME No.109/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii),3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SECTION 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 323, 354, 114 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 appellant - accused No. 2 praying to set aside the order dated 05.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1121/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of appellant – accused No. 2 sought in respect of Chitradurga Extension Police Station crime No. 109/2024 registered for offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act’) and

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶24

Section 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 323, 354, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC came to be rejected.

¶25

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

¶26

Respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint stating that she is working in KSRTC, Chitradurga Division and accused No.1 is also working in the KSRTC and once when she fell sick accused No. 1 told her that his aunt is residing in Davanagere and she will treat respondent No. 2 and took her to Davanagere and forcibly committed sexual intercourse on respondent No. 2 as per the abetment of his aunt - accused No. 2, i.e., appellant herein and gave life threat to her stating not to inform the same to anybody. Thereafter, accused No.

¶27

1 committed sexual assault on her several times at her work place and he also gave her physical and mental harassment and threatened that he will send the photographs and videos to all the mobile. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 also abused her in filthy language by taking her caste name. Said complaint

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶29

came to be registered in Chitradurga Extension Police Station crime No.109/2024 for the aforesaid offences. Appellant - accused No. 2, apprehending her arrest, had filed anticipatory bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant - accused No.2

¶31

would contend that now charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons and accusation against this appellant - accused No. 2 is committing offence under Sections 114 and 37 of IPC i.e., abetment to accused No.1 to commit forcible sexual intercourse on the complainant. He further submits that as charge sheet is filed, appellant - accused No. 2 is not required for custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against appellant - accused No. 2 is not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Without considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition of appellant - accused No. 2 by the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to appellant – accused No. 2.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the

¶34

respondent No. 1 – State would contend that appellant – accused No. 2 abetted accused No. 1 to commit forcible sexual intercourse on the complainant in her house and committed offence under Section 114 and 37 of IPC. Considering the said aspect learned Special Judge has rightly rejected her anticipatory bail petition by the impugned order which does not call for interference by this Court. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶35

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

¶36

Charge sheet has been filed against this appellant - accused No. 1 for offence punishable under Section 114 and 37 of IPC. The accusation against this appellant - accused No. 2 is that in her house she abetted accused No. 1 to commit forcible sexual intercourse on the complainant. As charge sheet is filed, appellant - accused No. 2 is not required for custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against appellant

¶37

accused No. 2 is not punishable with either death or

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶39

imprisonment for life. Appellant - accused No. 2 is a women. Without considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The appellant - accused No. 2 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶40

In the result the following;

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1121/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant - accused No.2 is granted anticipatory bail in crime No. 109/2024 of Chitradurga Extension Police Station subject to following conditions:

¶43

i. The appellant - accused No. 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49830 CRL.A No. 2108 of 2024

¶45

ii. The appellant - accused No. 2 shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within 2 weeks from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

¶46

iii. The appellant - accused No. 2 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶47

iv. The appellant - accused No. 2 shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶48

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶49

LRS

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Smt. Shakunthala R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakunthala R 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

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

Sabreen Taj Vs State of Karnataka by

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