Shantabai W/o Basavaraj, & Anr. vs The State of Karnataka Through Jewargi Police Station

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.76/2017 of Jewargi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC & also Sections 3(1) (10) & (11) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, on 06.04.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused persons came in the courtyard of the house of the complainant and abused him by taking the name of the caste and also abused in filthy language. Thereafter, threatened of demolishing his house and when he objected for insulting and humiliating him, he has been pushed and due to which he fell down. Thereafter, they dragged the saree of his wife and attempted to attack one Ashwini, who is a pregnant daughter-in-law of the complainant. Immediately she was sent inside the house. The alleged incident took place because, two days prior to the alleged incident, when the car of the son-in-law of the complainant was damaged by Bhagavanthray by dashing his tractor, there was a quarrel and out of such animosity the alleged incident has taken place. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners have not committed any offence alleged against them and a false case has been registered against them only with an intention to cause harassment and humiliation. It is also contended that because of the previous animosity, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners for having committed the offence under the SC/ST Act. It is further contended that there is a bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act, but there is omni bus allegation against the petitioners for having abused the complainant by taking the name of caste. As such, the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act are not attracted. Further, it is contended that petitioners have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded and if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would contend that looking to the material placed on record by the prosecution, there is prima facie case made out as against the petitioners under the SC/St Act. The petitioners have abused the complainant and subsequently dragged the saree of his wife and have also tried to pull his daughter-in-law, who is carrying and they have also insulted the complainant. He would also contend that, there is clear cut bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to grant anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have gone through the copy of the complaint and other material produced along with the petition.

Since the petition is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to examine whether the allegation in the complaint constitute an offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act in view of the Section 18 of the said Act. There are totally four accused persons. Looking to the complaint averments, there are no specific allegations as to which of the accused used the abusive words by taking the name of the caste. The bar and vague allegations have been made in the complaint that the petitioners have abused the complainant and they have also dragged the saree of his wife and also tried to assault his daughter-in-law. Only on that allegation, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case so as to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. Therefore, looking to the material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the provisions of SC/ST Act are not attracted and as such, the bar as contemplated under Section 18 of the said Act will also not restrict this court to grant the anticipatory bail. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and looking to the other material, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and even the complaint itself indicates that the alleged incident has taken place because of the earlier incident which has taken place between the son-in-law of the complainant and the accused persons. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioners are released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed.

The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail, in the event of their arrest, for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions :-

i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iii. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and co-operate for investigation.

iv. The petitioners shall mark attendance before the concerned police every fortnight till the charge sheet is filed.

v. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute personal bond, surety bond and furnish surety within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.