IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4038 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka by Maddur Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560001.
(By Sri H.S. Chandramouli, SPP) AND:
Srinivasa S/o late Ramanna, Aged about 45 years, R/o Valagerehalli, Maddur Taluk-571428.
(By Sri.B.Vijay Shetty, Advocate) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/accused in Crl.Misc. No.1896/2017 by order dated 04.01.2018 on the file of the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crime No.446/2017 of Maddur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act and to direct that the accused/respondent be arrested and committed to custody.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the State praying this Court to cancel the bail granted to the respondent- accused in Crl. Misc. No.1896/2017 by order dated 04.01.2018 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crime No.446/2017 registered by Maddur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 420 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (w) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act.
2. I have heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State and learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant belongs to Adi-Karnataka caste, her elder sister’s husband by name Mari took her to Maddur Vidyanatheshwara temple and tied Tali and thereafter, she removed the Tali and sold the same as per the suggestion of her mother-Thimmakka. By that time, she was pregnant and embryo of one Srinivas had been developing in her womb. Her mother did not know this fact and she had not disclosed by that time. Now, the accused Srinivas is contending that he is not the father of the child to which she gave birth, even his name is shown as Mari as the father of the child in the birth-certificate. The said Srinivas has not agreed for DNA test. There is a threat through the police that Rs.1,00,000/- expenses may be incurred for DNA test. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the Court below granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a casual manner without mentioning the facts of the case and the acquisition made as against the accused, is not acceptable in law. He further submitted that while exercising the power under Section of 438 of Cr.P.C the Court has to look into the provisions to Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989, which clearly bars grant of anticipatory bail and no reasons have been assigned by the Court below under what circumstances the said Court is exercising the provisions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the impugned order is so casual and without application of mind by misusing the power the said order has been passed. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused vehemently argued and submitted that though the Court below has not specifically mentioned the antecedents and the facts of the case but the Court below after application of mind has come to the conclusion that there are no ingredients so as to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and under such circumstances by exercising the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. the Court below has passed the order, there are no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and the order of the trial Court.
7. As could be seen from the order of the trial Court, the Court below while passing the impugned order it has not applied its mind and passed the casual order without expressing under what circumstances that the said provisions of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989, involved which are not applicable to the present facts of the case, in a casual manner it has come to the conclusion that no ingredients are available in the case of the prosecution and as such the petitioner-accused is entitled to be released on bail. While granting the bail the Court has to assign the cogent reasons though it is not necessary that the merits of the case are to be discussed in detail which is going to affect the merits of the case but the casual manner in which the order has been passed is deprecated, but on reassessment of the contents of the complaint and other material there is no serious allegations made in respect of the accused. Under the said circumstances, the granting of the anticipatory bail appears to be just and proper. Even there is no allegation any breach of condition of bail.
Under the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed.
The copy of the order may be sent to the concerned Judicial Officer.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS