Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.M.Prabhu vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3494/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI K.M.PRABHU,
S/O. SRI K.M.K.SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.2883,
VIJAYANAGAR IV STAGE, II PHASE,
MYSORE- 570 024. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE,
MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. . ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.146/2014 OF
VIJAYANAGAR P.S., MYSORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506, 344, 498-A OF
IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(X)(XI) OF SC/ST OF (POA)
ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner- accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 344, 498A of IPC and also under Sections 3(XI) and 3 (X) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent-police station Crime No.146/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the complaint averments itself goes to show that when the complainant joined the training at Mysore, she was in contact with the present petitioner. He also made the submission that the material goes to show that even she 3 used to come to the house of the petitioner and it is her case that the petitioner married her in the temple and after that he started giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. Counsel made the submission that the complainant was insisting the petitioner to enter her name in the service record of the present petitioner as a nominee she being the wife of the present petitioner. Counsel submitted that he was treating the complainant properly and even the materials produced in the case goes to show that he used to give money to her and there are entries in the passbook pertaining to the present petitioner and in spite of that she made false allegations against the present petitioner that he was harassing, assaulting and was also abusing her by taking her caste name and stating that she belongs to lower caste community and he would not have married her. Counsel made the submission that there are no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution to support her contention which she has made in the compliant. He also submitted that the present petitioner 4 is suffering from cancer and since from the year 2006, he is taking treatment in the hospital. Counsel drawn the attention of this Court to the annexures which he has produced in this case. Hence, he made the submission that since, the petitioner is having daughter who is 16 years of age, now he has to take care of his daughter and to admit her to SSLC and if the petitioner is not granted with anticipatory bail, the respondent- police will arrest him and the career of her daughter will be affected severely. He also made the submission that even now also he is ready to accept the complainant as his wife and to lead a marital life but it is the complainant herself unnecessarily making false allegations against the present petitioner and filing the false complaint. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail.
4. With regard to the allegations and the alleged offences under Provision of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence under the said 5 provision will not arise. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions reported in the case of "Sri N.B.Gungarakoppa and others v. State of Karnataka" reported in "2002 CRI.L.J. 3311" and in the case of "Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P." reported in "AIR 20111 SC 1905".
5. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the complaint averments and other materials produced in the case clearly goes to show prima-facie that the present petitioner was giving ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant and the materials also goes to show that he was abusing her by taking her caste name that she belongs to the lower community and he would not have married her. Hence, He made the submission that since the offence is also under the Provision of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 18 of the said Act, there is no clear bar to entertain the petition and grant relief. He also submitted that the matter is still under 6 investigation and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition. The averments made in the complaint goes to show that the complainant joined the training school at Mysore and at that time, the present petitioner was also serving there as a Lab Technician in K.R.Hospital, Mysore and during that period, the complainant came in contact with the present petitioner. Then, the friendship also developed between them and she used to come to the house of the present petitioner. The complaint averments also goes to show that the petitioner took her to Sri. Sai Baba temple on 08.04.2014 and married her. The materials goes to show that both the complainant as well as the present petitioner were living together and leading marital life as living relationship. These materials prima-facie goes to show that both the complainant as well as the present petitioner were staying together and 7 the materials produced by the present petitioner i.e., passbook also goes to show that he used to give money to her whenever she was in need of money. Therefore, these materials goes to show prima-facie that the petitioner was treating her properly but however, allegations are made in the complaint that he was giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. The other material produced by the present petitioner goes to show that he is suffering from cancer disease and in that connection, he was taking treatment since 2006 itself. The alleged incident according to the complainant is recent one. Therefore, it cannot be presumed at this stage, the petitioner created those documents said to have been issued from the medical department that he has created those documents because they are of the year 2006 and 2007 onwards. So materials goes to suggest that the present petitioner was taking care of the complainant. Therefore, the alleged offence under the provision of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not supported by the prima-facie material at this stage. Therefore, it 8 cannot be said that Section 18 of the said Act is a bar to entertain the petition to grant anticipatory bail.
7. The petitioner has contended in the bail petition that he is innocent and has not committed the alleged offence and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, so also the alleged offences which are trialble by Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to enlarge the petitioner- accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 344, 498A of IPC and also under Sections 3(XI) and 3 (X) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent-police station Crime No.146/2014, subject to the following conditions:
9
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `25,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly;
iii) Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for;
iv) Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from
the date of this order and to execute
the personal bond and the surety
bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM