Karnataka High Court
Latha Jayashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
NO . 1380 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. Latha Jayashankar
W/o Jayashankar
Aged about 53 years
2. Jayashankar
S/o Late Boregowda
Aged about 57 years
3. Rakshitha
D/o Jayashankar
Aged about 27 years
All are R/o
Near Jai Bharathi
School, V.V. Layout
Guthalu Colony
Mandya-571403.
...Appellants
(By Sri Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Mandya East PS
Bengaluru
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560009.
:: 2 ::
2. Keshavamurthy M.C.
S/o Chennaiah
Aged about 50 years
R/o D.No.LIG 44
1 s t Stage Housing board
Karasavadi Road
Mandya-571403.
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
Smt. Clara George, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of
SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to grant the anticipatory bail in
favour of the petitioners no.1 to 3/ accused no.1 to 3
directing the respondent no.1 police i.e. Mandya East
police station, Mandya to enlarge the petitioners no.1 to 3
/ accused no.1 to 3 on bail in the event of their arrest in
Mandya East Police Station CR No.59/2022 for the offence
punishable under Section 355 and 506 read with section
34 of IPC and etc,.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Basavaraj S Sappannavar, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Smt. Clara George, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
:: 3 ::
2. This is an appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act' for short), challenging the correctness of the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.606/2022, rejecting the appellants' application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.59/2022 registered by the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 355 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act.
3. FIR was registered on 28.06.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 355 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes :: 4 ::
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, at the instance of second respondent.
4. The FIR shows that there was a monetary transaction between the appellants and the second respondent. What is stated is that on 27.03.2022, when the second respondent met the first appellant for demanding money, the second appellant and his daughter, i.e., third appellant said that they would not repay the money and that he could do whatever he liked. They insulted him referring to his profession and caste. There is also allegation that the first appellant assaulted him with a chappal and abused him in the name of his caste.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in regard to the incident dated 27.03.2022, FIR was registered 3 months later. All the IPC offences are bailable and the offences under the Atricities Act are non bailable. There is no explanation for the delay in lodging FIR. The second appellant also instituted a :: 5 ::
complaint against second respondent and others under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore the FIR against the appellants is nothing but a revengeful action. The appellants 1 and 3 are women. In these circumstances, the court below should have granted anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that delay is explained. On the very next day of the incident, the second respondent approached the Civil Enforcement Cell and lodged a complaint there.
On 13.06.2022, the said complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Mandya. The first appellant and the second respondent are advocates. Being a advocate if the first appellant would go to the extent of insulting another advocate by taking the name of his caste, it shows that the members belonging to scheduled caste and schedule tribe have no protection. Prima-facie case has been made out and therefore the court below is justified in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail.
:: 6 ::
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader argues for sustaining the impugned order.
8. After hearing the learned counsel, it may be stated that if the FIR dated 28.06.2022 is perused, it appears that the money transaction between the appellants and the second respondent could be the reason for quarrel to breakout. Copy of PCR filed by second appellant against the second respondent and others also indicate the existence of some monetary transaction.
9. Though learned counsel for the second respondent submits that this transaction was settled and according to settlement, the appellants did not repay the money. So, if all these aspects are considered, it can be said that the money transaction between the parties was the root cause for the quarrel that might have taken place on 27.03.2022.
10. So far as the allegation that the second respondent was insulted in the name of his caste, at :: 7 ::
this stage, it is difficult to believe it, because the second respondent being an advocate could have directly gone to the police station immediately after the incident instead of approaching the Civil Enforcement Cell. Though reasons are given for the delay, it is a matter to be proved before the court. Looked in this view, prima-facie case about commission of offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act are not forthcoming. Therefore the trial court should have granted anticipatory bail to the appellants. Hence the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The order dated 21.07.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.606/2022 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set aside.
In the event of arrest of the appellants by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.59/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a :: 8 ::
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:-
(i) They shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.
(ii) They shall attend the police station whenever their presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.
(iii) They shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with evidence.
(iv) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in fortnight preferably on a Sunday between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till completion of the investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv/-