Baby Kumari Vs the State

THE STATE, BY SHO OF HIRIADKA POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, COURT OF AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, KARNATAKA BENGALURU -560 001.

¶14

M. SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O GANESH KAMATH, RESIDING AT GANESH NILAYA, MATTIBAILE, PUTTIGE, PERDOOR, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI - 576 124.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W. SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13825 CRL.A No. 357 of 2025

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.6/2025 TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST BY THE POLICE IN CR.NO.02/2025 OF HIRIADKA P.S. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 126, 115(1), 118(1), 352, 351 OF BNS AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State. The notice issued against respondent No.2 is served and she is unrepresented.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant married one Sri Ganesh Kamath, who is the brother of this appellant and both of them belong to different caste. They were cordial for some time and thereafter differences arose between them and the husband filed a case for divorce and the complainant is residing in the house belonging to her husband and for vacating the said house there is a dispute between the complainant and this appellant. It is alleged that on 31.12.2024, while the complainant was returning

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13825 CRL.A No. 357 of 2025

¶25

from Mudradi, she got down at Puttige bus stand and she was proceeding towards her house and at that time, the appellant came and kicked her from the back and pulled her hair and assaulted with stone. As a result, the complainant sustained injuries. Further, the accused shouted abusive words against the complainant that she belongs to a lower caste. Hence, a complaint was lodged and the case has been registered. The appellant approached the Trial Court and the Trial Court rejected the bail petition. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶26

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is not in dispute that the complainant married the brother of this appellant and thereafter differences arose between both of them and there is also a civil dispute between the parties. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that it is referred that the incident was taken place in the tar road and uttered the word only as she belongs to the lower caste and not taken particular caste name and hence it will not attract Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court committed an error in not considering the said fact

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13825 CRL.A No. 357 of 2025

¶28

into consideration and rejected the application and hence the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that specific allegation made against this appellant is that she abused the complainant that she belongs to the lower caste and also dispute is with regard to the fact that the complainant married the brother of the appellant and civil dispute is also between the parties and for the very object in causing assault and abusing there is a motive.

¶30

In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there was a case and counter case and this appellant has filed the complaint earlier and the same is numbered as Crime No.1/2025 and the present complaint is Crime No.2/2025.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and considering the factual aspects of the case as well as the averments of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that the complainant belongs to lower caste, but nothing is stated in the complaint about uttering her particular

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13825 CRL.A No. 357 of 2025

¶33

caste name with an intention to cause humiliation in the presence of public. Taking note of the said usage of the words that she belongs to lower caste and in the absence of any particular caste name is taken while abusing and apart from that, case and counter cases are registered against each of them and there were dispute between the brother of the appellant and the complainant since the brother married the complainant and divorce petition is pending before the Court and civil dispute also between the parties, hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant by imposing certain conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶35

following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶38

(ii) The appellant shall surrender herself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13825 CRL.A No. 357 of 2025

¶40

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

(iv) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and she shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶42

(v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶43

(vi) The appellant shall mark her attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶44

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

¶46

MD

Baby Kumari v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Kumari v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Olwyn D Souza

Sri B R Siddaramu Vs Sri H M Ravi

Parameshwara Basri Vs the State by SP

Sri Dhilipkumar Pari Vs State by the Indiranagar Police Station

Manja Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K P Boregowda @ Shashi Vs State of Karnataka