Karnataka High Court
Smt.Renuka vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3171/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt.Renuka
W/o Late Jagadeesh,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at Sree Kalikadevi Nivasa,
Helelingadahalli Road (M-Camp),
Birur, Birur Rural,
Kadur Taluk-57116,
Chikkamagalur District. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Bhadrinath.R, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Bagalagunte Police,
Bagalagunte Police Station,
Bengaluru-560073,
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560001.
2. Smt. Lakshmi
Aged about 26 years,
W/o Chandan,
Residing at Gangamma Building,
-2-
III Cross, Near Ganapathi Bar,
Manjunatha Nagara,
Kataraya Nagara,
Bagalagunte,
Bengaluru-560073. ... Respondents
(By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP for R1,
R2 - Served and unrepresented)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest
in Cr.No.69/2020 registered by Bagalagunte Police
Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 498-A, 504,
506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act and etc.,
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day through video conference, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.69/2020 of Bagalagunte Police Station pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 read -3- with 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as 'Act' for short).
2. I have heard learned counsel Sri Bhadrinath.R for the petitioner-accused No.2 virtually and Sri M. Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1- State. Though notice has been served to respondent No.2-complainant, he has remained absent.
3. The gist the complaint is that the complainant is the wife of accused No.1 and daughter-in-law of accused No.2 and she belongs to Scheduled Caste (Adi Dravida) community. During the year 2018 she was working as a Tele caller in Aqua Guard Company at Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru. At that time, she came in contact with accused No.1 through social media and their relationship turned into love -4- affair and both of them got married on 23.01.2019. It is further alleged that after the marriage both accused No.1 and the complainant resided in a rented house. Accused No.1 was working in Jindal and subsequently, they have shifted their rented house. In the meanwhile, she became pregnant. After coming to know about the pregnancy, accused No.2 called both accused No.1 and the complainant to Biruru. Accordingly, they went to Biruru then accused No.2 told to accused No.1 to got abortion as the child in the womb is belonging to lower caste community and they do not want the same. After coming back to Bengaluru, accused No.1 give some tablets and got aborted. It is further alleged that in the month of March she went to Biruru for Ugadi festival. At that time also accused No.2 abused the complainant by taking the name of her caste and also abused that she has not brought any dowry and asked accused No.1 to leave her as she will bring another girl to him. It is further alleged that accused No.1 assaulted the -5- complainant with hands by taking the name of her caste saying that she has not brought dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 that the petitioner- accused No.2 is a Government servant and she will be available for the purpose of trial. There is no chance of she being absconding. She further submits that accused No.1 has already been granted bail by the trial Court. On the ground of parity accused No.2 also entitled to be released on bail. It is the submission of the petitioner- accused No.2 that accused No.1 and the complainant were living separately and there is no question of committing the offence. It is his further submission that in the complaint, no allegations have been made where exactly, at what time the said allegations have been made as against the complainant. It is his further submission that if there is no prima-facie case made out -6- in the complaint, under such circumstances the petitioner-accused No.2 is entitled to be released on bail. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs The State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(6) SCC 454. It is his further submission that he is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 has abused the complainant by taking the name of caste and has also got aborted as fetus it belongs to the Scheduled Caste women. It is his further submission that as per Section 18(A) of the Act there is a clear bar to grant anticipatory bail when there is a prima-facie material in the -7- complaint. It is his further submission that there are serious allegations in the complaint which directly prohibits this Court to entertain the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the complaint does not depict the allegations under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Act. But on perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is evident that there are serious allegations made against the complainant by taking the name of her caste. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (quoted supra), in the said case, it has been observed -8- that if there is no prima-facie material in the complaint and the said complaint has been filed with a malafide intention, under such circumstances, the bar under the atrocity Act would not be attracted. But in the instant case, on perusal of the contents of the complaint, there is serious allegation for having abused the complainant by taking the name of her caste. In that light, the bar which is under Section 18(A) will come into picture and the petitioner-accused No.2 is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
8. Taking into consideration the above said factual matrix, the petitioner-accused No.2 has not made out any good grounds so as to release him on bail. In that light, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
It is further observed that in the event if the petitioner-accused No.2 surrender before the trial Court -9- within seven days, then the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb