IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4985 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka By Gubbi Police Station Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri M. Diwakar Maddur, HCGP) AND:
1. Ramappa S/o Late Basappa Aged about 56 years 2. Akkamma W/o Ramappa Aged about 51 years Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are r/at Bommathanahalli Village at Post, Kasaba Hobli Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District – 572 101.
…Petitioner 3. Pavithra W/o H. N. Venkatesh Aged about 28 years 4. H. N. Venkatesh S/o Narasimhappa Aged about 32 years Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are R/at R. Hosakote Village Rajavanthi Post, Kasaba Hobli Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-572101 Now r/at Bengaluru since 3 years 5. Manju M D/o Mallaiah Aged about 28 years Teacher R/at 3rd Cross Mahalakshminagara Gubbi Town, Gubbi Taluk Tumkur District – 572 101.
(By Sri Karthik Yadav U., Adv. for Sri. S. K. Venkata Reddy, Adv. for R1-4; R5 served but unrepresented) …Respondents This petition is filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside and cancel the bail order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Crl.Misc.No.143/2018 and consequently direct that the accused-respondents to be taken into custody forthwith and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petitioner-State is before this Court praying to cancel the bail granted on 19.02.2018 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in Criminal Misc. No.143/2018.
2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for petitioner–State and learned counsel for respondents.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court while considering the fact that the complainant has lodged the complaint alleging that petitioners-accused No.2 to 5 have abused the complainant by taking the name of her caste and the trial Court without considering the provision of Section 18 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for short), has exercised the power and released the petitioners-accused No.2 to 5 on anticipatory bail. He further submitted that while granting an anticipatory bail, the relevant fact to be considered for grant of anticipatory bail but the Court below has not done the same and has granted the bail, as such the same is not sustainable in law and prays to cancel the bail. Therefore, there is need to interference of this Court with the said order.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued and contended that the trial Court after considering the material placed on record has come to the right conclusion to the effect that in order to attract Section 18 of the Act, there is no material and even the allegations which have been made, they are general in nature and even there is no seriousness of offence as against petitioners- accused No.2 to 5. The allegation which has been made is only against accused No.1. Keeping in view of the said facts, the Court below has rightly allowed the petition and released petitioners-accused No.2 to 5 on bail. There are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the materials, submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 19.02.2018.
6. On close reading of the order, it reveals that the Court below has considered the relevant provision of Section 18 of the Act and by going through the contents of the complaint, it has come to the conclusion that allegation of threat and abusing by taking the name of the caste and other things are very vague and abuse by taking the name of the caste has also not been specifically stated and it is in omnibus allegation. In that light, the Court below has come to the conclusion that there is no prima-facie case so as to attract the provision of Section 18 of the Act and in that light the Court below has exercised the power and released the petitioner-accused No.2 to 5 on bail.
7. It is well settled principles of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454, it has observed that “no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide” bail can be granted.
8. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint, accused No.1 and complainant were living together and subsequently, they got married and lived for sometime. Thereafter, due to some difference of opinion, complainant lodged the complaint. That itself clearly goes to show that petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 5 were not connected in any manner to the alleged offence and even the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the allegation which have been made are vague and they are omnibus. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below has exercised the power vested with it under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and released the petitioner- accused No.2 to 5 on bail. Hence, there are no valid grounds made out by the petitioner so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Thus, there is no merits to consider the petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SN