Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 607 (AP)

Karri Ramya Lathasri v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-04-29

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2014
Judgment : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/A.2 in Crime No.23 of 2014, on the file of the Station House Officer, Undrajavam Police Station, West Godavari District registered for the offence punishable under 3(i)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A.2, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is an application filed with the averments in paras 1 to 16 in detail that this is a false accusation by referring to document dated 12.11.2013 at page 13 of the enclosures to the bail application stating that there is a civil litigation pertaining to it and it is an offshoot of the civil litigation, the crime is registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shobhan Singh Khanka v. State of Jharkhand ((2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 684) drawing attention of this Court to para 22 so also to para 14, wherein it was held that personal liberty is a fundamental right and imposition of conditions as laid down in Section 438 Cr.P.C are to be applied or not to be specified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court in Paracha Mohan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 535 (AP)), and drawn attention to para 11, which clearly speaks irrespective of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, a bail application is maintainable and it is for the Court to consider whether the allegations in the complaint or FIR attracts the prohibition under Section 18 of the Act or a case to grant anticipatory bail. It is clearly observed at the end of para 11 that when the allegations mentioned in the first information report/complaint in their entirety do not attract a particular offence under the Act, then the High Court or the Court of Session can exercise their discretion to grant anticipatory bail. 5. In fact, the Apex Court in the very recent expression in Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar ( 2014(3) SCC 471 ), wherein at Para 6 by referring to Para 9 of the earlier expression in Vilas Panduranga Pawar Vs. 5. In fact, the Apex Court in the very recent expression in Bachu Das Vs. State of Bihar ( 2014(3) SCC 471 ), wherein at Para 6 by referring to Para 9 of the earlier expression in Vilas Panduranga Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2012(8) SCC 795 ), observed as under: “6. It is clear that the learned Magistrate carefully perused the complaint petition, as well as the statement of the complaint and four witnesses examined during enquiry and arrived at a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons that the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, is made out. In such circumstance and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail. In similar circumstances, this Court has considered the offence under Section 3(1), as well as the bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and concluded as under: “9. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 9) The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.” 6. From the expression of the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that when the allegations indicate abusing the complainant with caste name with intent to humiliate, it is a bar for maintaining the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., in view of Section 18 of the Act. 7. Now, from the proposition of law adverting to the facts covered by the complaint given by the de facto complainant for registration of the crime, which is annexed at page 10, it refers to pointing out the occurrence and also abusing in caste name with intent to insult by the petitioner also once. When such are the averments in the complaint abusing in caste name in public view with an intent to insult, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act for anticipatory bail, and thereby whether it is false accusation or whether there is any truth in the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court for the purpose of bail application as per above law. Thus, it is not a case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner from the bar; though otherwise the facts deserve consideration of bail also because the petitioner is a girl student of B.Tech 2nd year and the only allegation against the accused is present at Sub-Registrar Office and abused in public view in caste name to insult; with no other worth averments so far as her. 8. 8. Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner/A.2to move regular bail application and surrender before the learned Special Judge concerned and after notice to the Public Prosecutor and in such an event, the learned Judge shall dispose the application granting bail on the same day keeping in view that the petitioner is a B.Tech 2nd year student and having a prosperous career and as such she shall not be detained in custody for no more purpose. The learned Judge in granting bail as per directions supra can impose necessary conditions.