Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 830 (KAR)

Lakshmana B. v. State

2022-07-01

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2022
JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Respondent No. 2 is served but there is no representation. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 3. The appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in Crime No. 135/2022 of Hulimavu Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Section 504, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act, for short). 4. The appellants preferred a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. No. 5069/2022 praying to release them on anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court on 30.05.2022. Hence, this appeal. 5. The complaint is lodged by one Deepa C, on 18.05.2022 in respect of an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 15.05.2022 at about 1.00 p.m. It is stated in the complaint that, she is 5 months pregnant and she had come to her mother's house along with her children. When her children were playing near their house, accused scolded and assaulted them and the matter was informed to her by her children. When she went near the gate to enquire, accused Nos. 1 to 3 came near the gate and when she asked them as to why they have scolded her children, they abused abused her in filthy language insulting her caste. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the appellants are innocent and a false case has been foisted against them. He submits that there is a civil dispute between parties and even on an earlier occasion a false case was filed by the complainant's brother against the family members of the appellants which ended in a 'B' Report. He contends that an omnibus allegations are made that all the accused have abused the complainant and it is not specifically stated as to who abused the complainant insulting his caste etc. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which has been made use by the appellants to falsely implicate these appellants at the instance of her brother and other family members. He submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants and they are ready to abide by any conditions. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which has been made use by the appellants to falsely implicate these appellants at the instance of her brother and other family members. He submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants and they are ready to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that a plain reading of the complaint clearly show that the appellants have abused the complainant in a filthy language referring to her caste in public view and therefore in view of Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST (POA) Act there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail. He contends that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and the statement of complainant is also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He therefore, seeks to reject the appeal. 8. As per complaint averments, the appellants abused and assaulted the complainant's children while they were playing near their house and therefore, the complainant went to enquire with them and at that time, complainant was abused by the appellants in filthy language insulting her caste etc. Though it is alleged that the complainant was abused by the appellants, it is not specifically stated as to who abused her. On the other hand, an omnibus allegations are made. It is difficult to accept at this stage that all the accused together uttered the same words and abused the complainant taking the name of her caste. It is also relevant to see that in the complaint itself it is stated that on the very same day complainant's brother called the office of the Police Commissioner and the police came and enquired about the incident. However, the complaint is lodged after three days i.e., on 18.05.2022. It is stated in the complaint that after discussing with the family members, the complaint was lodged. 9. The learned counsel for appellant has made available the copies of 'B' report filed by the police in respect of a complaint lodged by one Sri. Ragavendra stated to be the complainant's brother. Further, a copy of the plaint said to have been filed by the family members of the appellants against complainant's brother and her father in O.S. No. 1294/2018, on the file the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru, is also produced. 10. Ragavendra stated to be the complainant's brother. Further, a copy of the plaint said to have been filed by the family members of the appellants against complainant's brother and her father in O.S. No. 1294/2018, on the file the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru, is also produced. 10. The fact narrated in the complaint does not give an indication that the incident has taken place only on the ground that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. In Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020)10 SCC 710 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, it cannot be said that there is a prima case made out against the appellants for offence punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act. However, it is for the prosecution to establish its case against the appellants in due course. Hence, the following ORDER The order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, and Special Judge at Bengaluru in Crl. Misc No. 5069/2022 is set aside. The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are ordered to be released in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 135/2022 of Hulimavu Police Station, subject to following conditions: i. Appellants shall appear before the investigation officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two sureties for likesum. ii. Appellants shall cooperate with the investigation of the case and make themselves available for investigation, whenever required. iii. Appellants shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court, if there is any change in the address. iv. Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses in any manner. v. Appellants shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.