IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8537/2018 BETWEEN:
STATE BY YELANDUR POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. ..PETITIONER (BY SRI: HONNAPPA, HCGP) AND:
SHRUTHI H.M., D/O MAHADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O S.C.STREET, MADDUR VILLAGE, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. ..RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) ******* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT BY ORDER DATED 22.05.2018 IN CRL.MISC.NO.211/2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CRIME NO.119/2018 OF YALANDUR POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 177, 198, 199, 420 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(q) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, AND DIRECT THAT THE RESPONDENT BE TAKEN TO CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner/State and perused the petition and the grounds urged therein.
2. The State has filed this petition for cancellation of bail granted by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, by order dated 22.05.2018 in Crl.Misc.No. 211/2018, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the respondent in Crime No.119/2018 on the file of the Yelandur Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 177, 198, 199, 420 of IPC and also under section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The allegations against the respondent are that the respondent who belonged to Lingayat community has married a person belonged to scheduled caste. On the assumption that she also belongs to scheduled caste by virtue of her marriage, she obtained a caste certificate from the concerned authority i.e., Tahasildar concerned and after noticing that her caste was not coming under the category of her husband’s caste, she has resigned the post obtained by her. Therefore, considering the above said facts and circumstances and holding that there was no such criminal intention or motive as she has resigned the job got on the basis of the said caste certificate, the Trial Court has granted anticipatory bail with certain conditions.
4. There is no allegation as such that she has obtained the post which was reserved for scheduled caste/scheculed tribe. Therefore, during the course of trial, it has to be established that an offence was constituted under section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. Till that point of time, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No notice is necessary to be issued to the respondent. As such, same is dispensed with.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss.