IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3363 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. RUKMINI W/O M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SANTHOSH. M S/O M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.512 6TH A CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD NEAR KALANIKETHAN SCHOOL AECS LAYOUT, A BLOCK BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU CITY – 560068. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI C. PRAVEEN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SMT. M SARASWATHI W/O R. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 512/6, 60 FEET ROAD AECS LAYOUT KUDLU BENGALURU – 560 068.
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ELARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR. NO. 71/2019 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354, 380, 504, 506 AND 306 R/W 511 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records.
2. The factual matrix of the case discloses that a lady by name M. Saraswathi lodged a complaint before the police on 24.03.2019 while she was in hospital stating that she had been running a beauty parlour in the name and style of ‘Soundarya Beauty Parlour’ and she has been paying regular rents to one Narayanappa being the owner and who is the father of petitioner no.2 and husband of petitioner no.1. It is the case of prosecution that the said Narayanappa – Accused no.1 had been ill-treating and harassing this lady for the purpose of evicting her from the said shop premises for the purpose of leasing the same for more rent. In this context, there was some differences between said Narayanappa and Saraswathi. In fact, there was a complaint and counter complaint being lodged by Narayanappa against this lady and this lady against the said Narayanappa and the police have also given an endorsement that as the matter is of civil in nature, they have to go before the civil court. In this background, it is alleged that the petitioners along with the said Narayanappa went to the said shop on 20.03.2019 in the morning along with some rowdy elements, broke open the lock which was put to the said shop and trespassed into the said shop and caused damage to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs and also committed theft of Rs.1,85,700/- etc. They also abused her in filthy language and provoked her to commit suicide. In this background, it is alleged that on 20.03.2019 after about three days of the incident, she consumed 25 diabetic tablets, suffered with stomach pain and was admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, complaint was lodged and the investigation is in progress.
3. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the police have invoked the provisions of Section 306 of IPC for the reasons best known to them, though she has not succumbed to consuming tablets. The other offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. There is no abusive words used by the accused persons in order to humiliate her with reference to her caste. Therefore, it is difficult to draw an inference that offence punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(z) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are attracted. Under the above said circumstances, particularly, when the accused no.1 against whom, main allegations are made has already enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., Therefore, I am of the opinion, that petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners (A2 and A3) shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2019 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and they shall execute their personal bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Investigating Officer, till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE DKB