Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.477 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MALINI ALIAS MALINI JATHANNA W/O PRAKASH KOIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 2-23(13), ASHIRVAD NAGAR, KELRKALABETTU, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576105 (BY SRI GOVINDARAJ K JOISA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
BY S H O, MALPE POLICE STATION UDUPI DISRICT REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. SHOBHA D NAIK W/O DAMODAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 2-141, DEVI KRUPA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 KOJAKOLI, KELARKALABETU UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14-A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.21/2025 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.5/2025 OF MALPE POLICE, UDUPI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 352, 118(1), 74, 115(2), 351(2) OF BNS 2023 AND UNDER SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.2 challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.21/2025 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe and that on 09.01.2025 at about 6.45 p.m., the complainant along with her husband came to Tenkanidiyoor fish market to buy fish. At that time, this appellant along with other accused persons came there in an auto rickshaw and accused No.1 verbally abused husband of the complainant in Tulu language and attacked him with an iron rod. When the complainant tried to rescue her husband, accused No.1 torn the purple colour blouse of the complainant in public and threatened them saying that they will kill them and shouted abusive words and this appellant abused the complainant referring to her caste and gave life threat. 4. The counsel for appellant would vehemently contend that this appellant is a member of the particular panchayat and the complainant also the President of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 very same panchayat and due to political rivalry, a false case has been registered against the appellant and other accused persons. The counsel would vehemently contend that specific allegations are against accused No.1 and the Trial Court granted bail in favour of accused No.1 but rejected the bail petition of this appellant only coming to the conclusion that many proceedings were pending between the complainant and accused persons and this appellant inspite of aware of the complainant and her status, abused her taking the caste name and there is a bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘POA Act’) and rejected the same. The counsel would vehemently contend that even having considered the contents of the complaint also except making an abuse that she belongs to a lower caste, not uttered any word referring her caste name and hence, it will not attract the offence invoking of Prevention of Atrocities Act. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for State would vehemently contend that though not mentioned the particular caste name of the complainant but mentioned that she belongs to the lower caste. Apart from that the counsel would vehemently contend that knowingfully well that she belongs to a particular community, abused is made and hence, there is a bar under Section 18(a) of the POA Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the complainant is the President of the particular panchayat and this appellant is also a member of the very same panchayat. Apart from that the Court has to see that while invoking the offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, there must be an intention to humiliate the complainant in the general public and abused particularly referring the caste name. But in this case, except stating that the complainant belongs to a lower caste, not taken the particular caste - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 name of the complainant. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the State that there is a bar under Section 18(a) of the POA Act cannot be accepted since there is an allegation that only abused in a filthy language and no overt act allegation is made against this appellant. Having considered the averments of the complaint, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion granting the bail in favour of the appellant. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.5/2025 of Malpe Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 118(1), 74, 115(2), 351(2) of BNS 2023 and under Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, subject to the following conditions:- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 (i) The appellant shall surrender herself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The appellant shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and she shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13307 CRL.A No. 477 of 2025 without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The appellant shall mark her attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN