IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4948/2019 BETWEEN:
BHARATHI K BHAT, W/O KRISHNA BHAT P.V., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT ANUGRAHA HOUSE, BEHIND THALIPADPU GROUND, ADKATHBAIL, P.O., KASARGUD – 671 121.
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH C.M., ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE BY JEEVANBHEEMANAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. AKSHATHA, W/O ADITYA K.V., 68, AISHWARYA LAYOUT, KUPPALURU POST, MYSORE CITY AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP) ... PETITIONER Amended as per order of the court dated. 14.10.2019 …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.82/2019 REGISTERED BY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent – state. Perused the records.
2. The complainant has been informed by the respondent – Police with regard to the filing of this case before this Court for grant of bail by the petitioner.
3. The respondent – Police have registered a case in Crime No.82/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The allegations are that the petitioner is none other than the mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant was given in marriage with accused No.1 and their marriage took place on 07.05.2015 with the consent of both the families. The petitioner’s family belong to Brahmin community and complainant’s family belong to Schedule Tribe. The inter-caste marriage took place with the consent of both the families. The husband and wife resided together at Bangalore. However, petitioner and her husband are residing at Kasargudu. It is alleged that after some days of marriage, the difference of opinion arose between the accused No.1 and complainant and as accused No.1 was addicted to alcohol, he used to assault her and abuse her with filthy language referring to caste etc., It is stated that as and when the petitioner and her husband came to Bangalore, they also abused her in filthy language referring to her caste stating that she belongs to backward caste. Except that, in what manner they were referring to the caste is not stated, more over, it appears that the incident happened inside the house, but not in the public view in order to attract Section 3 (1) (r), 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner has to establish that the abusive words used in order to defame the complainant in the public view. The said aspect has to be proved during the course of full fledged trial.
5. Under the above said circumstances, the attraction of provision is doubtful and the other offences are seriously not punishable and other accused have already been released on bail, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.82/2019 of Jeevanbheemanagar Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and she shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and she shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner 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.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB