IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3860 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka By the Madikeri Rural Police Station, Kodagu, Madikeri, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560001. ...Petitioner (By Sri.K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) AND:
Sri.Badru Lamani, S/o B.Himalu Iamani, Aged about 53 years, R/o Coffee Research Station, Chettalli, Kodagu District – 571201. ...Respondent (By Sri.Shyam Koundinya.A.S, Advocate - absent) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C praying to (a) cancel the bail order dated 19.01.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.24/2018 in so for as granting anticipatory bail to respondent-accused in Crime No.4/2018 of Madikeri Rural Police station, for the offences punishable under Section 509 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (r) (s), 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act. (b) direct that the accused/respondents 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 Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent inspite of giving several opportunities.
2. The present petition has been filed by the State under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent/accused No.2 by Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Crl. Misc.No.24/2018 by order dated 19.01.2018.
3. The gist of the case is that on 01.06.2009, the accused persons misbehaved with the complainant, teased her, insulted her and used un-parliamentary words. It is also the further case of the complainant that the accused person was mentally harassing and abusing her in filthy language by taking name of the caste and there by committed the offence under Section 509 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’). A complaint was registered in this behalf.
4. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the Court below while granting anticipatory bail to respondent/accused No.2 has not considered the fact that there is a bar under Section 18(a) of the Atrocities Act. He further submits that the legal aspect of the said provisions has not been properly considered by the trial Court. He further submits that the trial Court can attract anticipatory bail application filed by respondent/accused No.2. He further submits that the complaint and other materials shows that the accused has harassed the complainant and abused with filthy language at work place and committed the said offence which clearly attracts the provisions under the aforesaid Act. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition and cancel the bail.
5. I have carefully gone through the submission and I have also perused the contents of the complaint and also the order of the trial Court. By going through the order of the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and by referring to various decisions thereafter has come to the conclusion that respondent/accused No.2 is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Even the Court below has taken a view that there is no prima facie material as against the petitioner to attract the bail provisions of Atrocities Act. It is well settled principles of law by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Subhas Kashinath Mahajan v/s State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2018(6) SCC 454 that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in case of Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out and on judicial scrutiny, if the complaint is found to be prima facie not bonafide then, under such circumstance, the Court can grant anticipatory bail. By going through the order of the trial Court, which is a detailed order, which has been passed on various grounds and thereafter, it has come to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case made out to reject the anticipatory bail application. Thereafter for those reasons, order has been passed and respondent/accused No.2 has been released on bail. Under the same order, other accused persons are also released and that order has not been challenged.
6. I feel that the Court below, after considering and exercising discretion, has granted the bail in a rightful manner under such facts and circumstances that there are no good grounds to cancel the bail granted by the Court below. Hence the petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NS