Karnataka High Court
Smt. R. Janaki vs State Of Karnataka By Robertson Pet ... on 25 August, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4903/2014
BETWEEN:
SMT. R. JANAKI
W/O SHIVALINGA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO.3056
RAJENDRA LAYOUT,
KGF MAIN ROAD
DESHIHALLI,
BANGARPET-563114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ROBERTSON PET
POLICE STATION
KGF, KOLAR
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAGADEESH, SPL. PP.)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.71/2014
OF ROBERTSONPET P.S., K.G.F., FOR THE OFFENCE
2
P/U/S 197,198,420 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(9) OF SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 197, 198, 420 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.71/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned Spl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was rejected. 3 Subsequently, the petitioner has surrendered before the Court and filed the application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that petitioner is a woman and the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. As against this, the learned the Spl.Public Prosecutor during the course of his arguments submitted that the materials show that though the petitioner was not belonging to SC/ST community and she belongs to Devanga community, after her marriage with her husband, who belongs to SC community, by swearing an affidavit that she belongs to SC community and got the job and thereby the genuine candidate belonging to SC community, who was really eligible for the said post has been deprived of by the said opportunity. He has also submitted that materials clearly show prima-facie that petitioner has committed the alleged offence. Hence, there is a fraud on the 4 Constitution itself. In this connection, learned Spl.PP relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1011 in the case of MRS.VASLAMMA PAUL v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS and draw the attention of this Court to para 34 of the said judgment. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned Spl.PP, which is refereed above. Looking to the materials, the facts in brief that as per the complaint averments the petitioner belongs to Devanga community, which comes under the backward classes and she married a person by name Sivalingam, who belongs to SC community and petitioner thinking that she married a person, who belongs to SC community, she also comes under the said community. Without obtaining the Caste Certificate from the competent 5 authority, petitioner sworn the affidavit on 20.11.1981 claiming herself that she belongs to SC community and comes under the reservation category and she got an employment in the Government aided Educational Institution at KGF and deprived the person, who really belongs to SC community of the said opportunity and she has cheated the Government as well as the person, who were really entitled to the job, on the said reservation. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offence.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has not committed any offence, she has been falsely implicated in the case and has undertaken that she is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Except the offence under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the other offences alleged under the provisions of IPC are all triable by the Magistrate Court and they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. I have 6 also perused the decision and the principles enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Spl.PP appearing for the respondent. But the said decision is while considering the appeals on Special Leave and not while considering the bail application. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and the nature of the offences alleged and petitioner being a woman and case is under the proviso of Section 437 of Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner can be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 197, 198, 420 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.71/2014, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the 7 likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR