Karnataka High Court
Smt Rathnavathi.K vs State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
CRL.A No. 611 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 611 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT RATHNAVATHI.K
W/O JAGDISH CHANDRA A K,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O 78, TRIPURA SRI NILAYA,
KRISHNANDA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 096.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by BY JAYANAGAR P S,
LAKSHMI T REP. BY STATE P P,
Location: HIGH COURT BUILDING,
High Court BANGALORE-560 001.
of
Karnataka 2. PRAMODINI R
D/O RAVI,
NO 476, KR LAYOUT, 6TH PHASE,
JP NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE HER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.42/2023 FOR THE
-2-
CRL.A No. 611 of 2023
OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(xii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTION
354(A), 506, 504, 376 OF IPC REGISTERED BY JAYANAGAR P.S.,
PENDING BEFORE THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State and perused the material on record.
2. The learned High Court Government Pleader has filed a memo reporting service of notice on respondent No.2, however there is no representation.
3. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.2 in Cr.No.42/2023 of Jayanagar Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of -3- CRL.A No. 611 of 2023 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST (POA) Act) and under Sections 354A, 506, 504 and 376 of IPC.
4. Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant herein has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1710/2023 by an order dated 15.03.2023, hence this appeal.
5. FIR is registered against one Ravindra/accused No.1 and the appellant herein, alleging sexual assault and rape committed against the first informant in a Unisex Saloon, wherein the first informant was working as a Beautician. A perusal of the complaint averments would reveal that on 14.02.2023 at about 2.30 p.m. accused No.1-Brother-in-law of the appellant herein came to the said Saloon and then committed sexual assault on the victim and then threatened her with dire consequences etc. It is alleged that the said Saloon is being run by the appellant and her husband and the appellant has abetted the commission of the offence by accused No.1. It is -4- CRL.A No. 611 of 2023 further alleged that the appellant herein abused the first informant taking her caste name and insulted her etc.
6. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer seeking anticipatory bail has observed that the appellant herein has insisted the victim to provide free service and service like happy ending to accused No.1, who subsequently committed forcible sexual act on the victim and further that there are prima facie materials to attract Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking anticipatory bail.
7. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 14.02.2023 at about 2.30 p.m. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he committed sexual assault on the victim. In the written complaint, which is filed on 16.02.2023, it is alleged that the appellant herein was forcing the victim to give free service and also service like happy ending. It is not forthcoming from the complaint that on the date of incident i.e. 14.02.2023 the appellant -5- CRL.A No. 611 of 2023 herein had either forced the victim to give free service or that she had abetted accused No.1 to commit sexual assault on the victim. The complaint is lodged after two days. It is alleged that the appellant herein has supported accused No.1 and also insulted the victim by referring to her caste etc. The said allegation is vague in nature.
8. learned counsel for the appellant relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarkhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 has contended that the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act would not attract unless and until it is shown that the said Act is committed by the accused only on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
9. In the aforementioned decision, it is held that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, unless such insult or intimidation is only on account of victim belonging to SC/ST.
-6-CRL.A No. 611 of 2023
10. As already observed, the allegations made against the appellant with regard to the provisions under SC/ST is very vague and it is not stated as to when and in whose presence the appellant abused the victim in filthy language referring to her caste. It is also not the case of prosecution that only on account of victim belonging to a member of vulnerable section of society, she was abused or threatened by the appellant.
11. The appellant is a woman. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment for this Court to grant the relief sought by the appellant by imposing conditions. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1710/2023, by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. -7- CRL.A No. 611 of 2023
2. The appellant/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.42/2023 of Jayanagar Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 354(A), 506, 504 and 376 of IPC, subject to following conditions:
i. Appellant 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 personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
ii. Appellant shall co-operate with the investigation/enquiry and she shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. -8- CRL.A No. 611 of 2023 iii. Appellant shall furnish proof of her residential address and shall inform the Court/IO regarding change in the address, if any. iv. Appellant shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.
SD/-
JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3