IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6701/2017 BETWEEN:
1. MUNIRAJU S S/O LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT CPDO CAMPUS HESARGHATTA BENGALURU – 560 090.
2. SMT.SUNANDA S. W/O MR.MUNIRAJU S.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT CPDO CAMPUS HESARGHATTA BENGALURU – 560 090.
3. AKASH M.
S/O MR.MUNIRAJU S. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT CPDO CAMPUS HESARGHATTA BENGALURU – 560 090.
4. SMT.S.VANISHREE W/O MR.N.PRASAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.102, NEAR PRASHANTHI BALAMANDIR SCHOOL BHAGATHSINGH NAGAR CHIKKABALLAPUR – 562 101.
5. R.PRASHANTH KUMAR S/O LATE P.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NO.3, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA APRAMEYA VRINDA LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI, KENGERI MAIN ROAD KENGERI BENGALURU – 560 060.
6. S.MANJUNATH S/O M.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.27/4, GOWRI NILAYA SHIVARAM KARANTH ROAD CHIKKAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI B.NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.J.ALVA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. S.VENKATESHAIAH S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS NO.293, 6TH CROSS OPP.SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT AGBC LAYOUT, CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU – 560 090. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.38/2017 OF VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent-police in their Cr.No.38/2017 registered in respect of the offences under sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’ hereinafter) and under Section 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, for the last seven years, the daughter of the complainant had affair with M.Abhilash, son of the 1st accused (1st petitioner herein). For a while, Abhilash was not in contact with his daughter after the 1st and 2nd accused (parents of Abhilash) expressed their dissent for the marriage. In this regard, complaint was lodged by the girl to the Soladevanahalli police station.
After the interference by the police, Abhilash had agreed to marry the girl and married her on 4.7.2017 at Shaneshwara temple. The marriage is registered before the Registrar of Marriages on 6.7.2017. Both of them after honeymoon trip led marital life together in a rented house arranged by the complainant.
4. In the meantime, the 1st accused filed a Habeas Corpus petition before this Court on 18.7.2017. Abhilash and complainant’s daughter appeared before the Court and submitted that they have married on their own volition. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus petition was dismissed. After the court proceedings, while the complainant along with his friend was passing through Gate No.3 of the High Court, all the accused abused him filthily in the public, intimidated him by taking the name of his caste: to reiterate said complaint averments, ‘Holeya, Madiga, Sulemagane, Ninu keelu jatiyavanu, Ninage nanna maga bekeno, Ninnannu biduvudilla, Sayisi biduttene endu prana bedarike hakidaru’; thus intentionally insulted him and humiliated him. The complainant aged 59 years suffering from several ailments was under shock and fell unconscious. Immediately, his friend Mustafa took him to his house and got treated etc.
5. Learned Senior counsel Sri. Ravi B. Naik for the petitioners submits that Gate No.3 of the High Court is since under the watch and ward of police personnels, it is highly impossible that such an incident would go unnoticed by them. There is a delay of four days in lodging the complaint and the delay is not properly explained. The ailments that the complainant is suffering are not specifically averred in the complaint. Visualizing the scenario as alleged, i.e., accosting the complainant, intimidating and insulting him by taking the name of his caste, questioning him why he is behind his son and threatening of dire consequences etc. cannot be attributed against any other petitioners except the father of Abhilash i.e. the 1st petitioner. It is unimaginable that all the six of them insulted, intimated the complainant in single tone as if they had practiced a song together prior to the incident.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint is consequence of the disputed marriage between Abhilash and daughter of the complainant and no allegation is made against Abhilash in the complaint and it is also a striking factor to be noticed from the complaint that the petitioners insulted the complainant only and not his daughter. Thus a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(x), presently 3(1)(r)&(s) of the Act is not made out from the complaint, thus Section 18 of the said Act is not a bar for the petitioners to seek relief of anticipatory bail.
7. Learned Government Pleader apart from submitting his objection statement, submits that during the course of investigation Abhilash is arraigned as accused with the permission of the Special Court since he made threatening call to the daughter of the complainant. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses and also further statement of the complainant. The accused persons herein are not co-operating and are avoiding investigation. The Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi Vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia @ Omkarjeet Singh & others in SLP (Crl.) No.1929/2015 dated 24.3.2017 set aside the order of anticipatory bail granted by the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the appropriate Court.
8. As per the investigation papers, the complainant and the 1st accused are working in the same institution in different departments. The marriage was objected by the petitioners for caste prejudices since the accused are from upper caste and the informant belongs to scheduled caste. The accused did not participate in the marriage and was nurturing grudge against the informant and his daughter. Thus, they abused and humiliated the informant in the public by taking his caste name.
9. Avinash and daughter of the complainant viz., Sindhu after the marriage had traveled together in a bus to Coimbatore and Ooty, on their return they had set up a matrimonial home at Bengaluru. The 4th petitioner 4-5 times called Abhilash over phone and threatened him to give statement in their favour before the High Court in the Habeas Corpus proceedings. The said conversation is recorded in an auto recorder of the mobile phone and due to the threat and coercion exhorted by the petitioners, now Abhilash has deserted the complainant’s daughter. By using the mobile phone given to him by the informant’s daughter, Abhilash is now abusing and threatening his wife. No case is made out by the petitioners that it was a forceful marriage. They have not lodged any complaint in respect of the said allegation. In the Habeas Corpus petition, these petitioners had cited the relationship between Abhilash and Sindhu as that of a brother and a sister. After the marriage, Abhilash and Sindhu had physical relationship. No complaint of abduction or forceful marriage was filed by the accused persons and to their knowledge, Abhilash was moving in the public place. The caste prejudice carried by the petitioners has culminated in the incident dated 18.7.2017. The alleged acts of offence not only falls under the Act, but also against the constitutional intention of a Society based on equality and indiscrimination.
10. Learned Government Pleader continues to submit, in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006)5 SCC 475 the Apex Court observed as follows at paras.16 and 17:
“ 16. Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public concern, such as the present one.
17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.”
11. In the light of the above principles and also the evidence so far collected, a prima facie case in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)&(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act being made out, at this stage prayer of the petitioners is hit by provision of Section 18 of the Act and the petition is liable to be rejected.
12. With the above rival submissions, perused the complaint allegations and the case diary.
13. As per further complaint by the complainant to the Investigating Officer of respondent-police on 8.8.2017, the accused talked something with Abhilash and when the informant called Abhilash to come to his house and stay with his daughter, he refused to join her and abused by stating that she belongs to schedule caste Holeya, Madiga community and he is ruined by marrying her etc. At that time, 1st petitioner abused him (as narrated in the complaint).
14. As per his further statement dated 25.7.2017 the complainant alleges that immediately after they came out of Court Hall 10, the accused persons surrounded him and attempted to take Abhilash with them forcibly. When the complainant attempted to rescue him, the 1st petitioner abused him (as stated in his complaint). Thereafter, on the way to the Advocate General’s office, repeated the same exercise. They attempted to assault him and took Abhilash with them. There is some discrepancy about the place of occurrence. As per the initial complaint averments and the further statement of the victim, it pinpoints 1st petitioner in respect of the allegation of inciting and intimidating the complainant in the public place. Also it is beyond one’s common sense to palate that all the accused persons in single tone would utter intimidating words synchronously. As could be made out from the records, it is the reluctance of the petitioners to accept the marriage between Abhilash and complainant’s daughter that has resulted in the complaint. Be that as it may, the observations made supra would impress the court to hold at this stage that a prima facie case is made out in respect of the accused Nos.2 to 6.
15. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manjula Devi’s case supra at this stage, cannot come in the way of granting anticipatory bail because in the said case investigation was complete and the entire investigation material was before the Apex Court on the basis of which the court formed its opinion that an offence under the Act is made out.
16. The observation made in the judgment of Lata Singh (supra) was while considering a petition for certiorari/mandamus seeking quashing of the sessions trial.
17. Though there is delay in lodging the complaint, that by itself is not a ground to suspect the complaint having regard to the previous history of the complainant. Having regard to the ambience to the back up of the complaint, the statement of the witnesses refers categorically against the 1st petitioner. Though no overt act resulting in injury to the complainant is alleged, mere fact that he is alleged to have abused and intimidated the complainant by referring to complainant’s caste, strongly probabalises commission of an offence under Section 3(r) & (s) of the Act. Hence, it is felt that he shall surrender before the court and seek for regular bail before the Special Court.
The petition is partly allowed. The petitioners 2 to 6 are granted anticipatory bail in Cr.No.38/2017 registered by the respondent-police for three weeks. Within the above period, they shall surrender before the concerned Court and move for regular bail. Till disposal of their regular bail petition, this order will be in force. In the event of their arrest by the respondent-Investigating Officer in respect of the above case, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum.
Prayer of the 1st petitioner is rejected. He is directed to surrender before the concerned court. In the event he serves advance copy of his bail petition to the Public Prosecutor, surrenders and moves for bail, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/17 does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stands disposed of.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE