Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. VIGNESH S.P. S/O SUNDAR S.P., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 787, 1ST MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 (BY SRI. SAGAR S.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 029 …APPELLANT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. MRS. CHANDRA KALA W/O. VIGNESH S.P., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 24, BHOVI COLONY, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BHYRASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 011
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1/STATE SRI. NARAYAN REDDY M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1310/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is filed against the order of rejection of Anticipatory Bail in favour of accused No.1 and granted bail in favour of accused Nos.2 to 6. The Trial court while rejecting the application assigned the reasons that there is a bar under Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act) which attracts Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act since there is a abuse pointing the caste name of respondent No.2 in front of the house within the public view and hence, the accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the appellant and respondent No.2 was a love cum arrange marriage. He further submits that the incident has taken place from 20.05.2022 to 31.03.2023 and the complaint in this regard came to be filed on 19.01.2025. The learned counsel submits that the present complaint filed is an after thought. He would also vehemently contend that the complaint allegations are made with regard to borrowing of money and repayment of the same as well as the amount being paid for business subsequently. Though it is specifically mentioned that the incident had taken place on 31.03.2023 but the complaint came to be lodged on 19.01.2025. The complaint is a false complaint which is lodged only with an intention to harass the petitioner and the same was filed belatedly and it is an after thought. The allegation made is an omnibus allegation only with an intention to attract Section 18A of the Act, but no such incident had taken place and also the bar under Section 18A will not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail. Learned counsel would further contend that the trial court has committed an error in only taking note of the contents of the complaint and had failed to take note of the fact that an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 omnibus statement was made and no specific words were used by this accused and hence, he is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that the very complaint clearly discloses that prior to the marriage an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- was availed and made repayment of Rs.3,00,000/- and subsequently also, all of them demanded additional money and an additional amount of Rs.65 Lakhs was given. Thereafter, once again when the amount was insisted on 31.03.2023, he abused the respondent No.2 by taking her caste name that too in the public place and this fact was taken note of by the Trial Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by accused No.1 and hence, in view of Section 18A of the Act, this court cannot grant any anticipatory bail in favour of the accused. 5. Learned Additional SPP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that while granting the anticipatory bail, the court has to take note of the contents of the complaint and in the instant case, the contents of the complaint discloses - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 the uttering of the words by taking the caste name while abuse was made and hence, the accused is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional SPP for State and also learned counsel for respondent No.2 and taking note of the fact that while invoking the anticipatory provision, the court has to look into the contents of the complaint, a perusal of the content of the complaint discloses that the incident took place on 31.03.2023, but the complaint came to be filed on 19.01.2025 and no doubt it discloses also that there was a money transaction prior to the marriage and subsequent to the marriage also and some repayment was also made. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to the notice of this court the repayment made by the accused as well the amount lent by the respondent No.2 and now this court while considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail, whether payment was made or not cannot be considered. However, the court has to take note of the fact whether it - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 attracts the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act or not. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this court para 4A where the incident had taken place and it is specifically mentioned that the incident had taken place in house No.768A 1st Floor, 1st Cross, 7th Block, Hosakerehalli, Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore City and the very contention of the respondent that it was in the public place cannot be accepted and also the Apex court in the case of HITESH VARMA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, AIR 2020 SC 5584 has categorically held that if any incident was taken place within four walls of the house, special enactment cannot be invoked. In 'PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2020 SC 1036 also the Apex Court held that there must be an act with an intention to abuse in the presence of general public and when such principle was laid down and Apex court also held that if the offence does not constitute the ingredients of the Act the court can grant the relief exercising its discretion and bar under Section 18A will not come in the way of granting the relief. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 9. Having considered the principle laid down in HITESH VARMA'S case as well as PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN'S case and also considering the contents of the complaint, no doubt the incident had taken place on 31.03.2023 and there was a belated complaint i.e., almost after 1 year 7 months and the same is an after thought as contended by learned counsel for the appellant and also having considered the contents of the complaint which discloses that there was only mention that she belongs to lower caste and no specific utterance is made as to who has uttered words that she belongs to Bovi community but just an omnibus allegation is made in the complaint and when such an omnibus allegation is made in the complaint court has to take note of the said fact into consideration and the bar under Section 18A of the Act will not come in the way of exercising the discretion. The trial court failed to take note of the contents of the complaint while rejecting the petition and in coming to the conclusion that there was an utterance of the caste name and also taken note of the fact that there was a continuous demand of money by the accused, the same cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition and hence, it requires interference of this court and the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 contents of the complaint discloses that an amount of more than Rs.70 lakhs was received and also learned counsel submits that the material with regard to repayment of the same is also placed before the court and pointed out that the investment made was in connection with the business and payment made to the accused cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition. Hence, the appellant has made out the ground to invoke and grant the relief of anticipatory bail and hence it is appropriate to grant the anticipatory bail subject. Accordingly, the following (i)
Decision
The appeal is allowed. ORDER (ii) The appellant shall surrender himself 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/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16052 CRL.A No. 516 of 2025 (iv) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (vi) The appellant shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., 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 SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40