SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shashikumara vs State Of Karnatatka By on 28 January, 2019

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7855/2018

BETWEEN:

1. Shashikumara
S/o Vishnuhari
Aged about 25 years
Bantahalli Village
Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk,
Kolar – 563 130.

2. Sumithramma
W/o Vishnuhari
Aged about 53 years
Bantahalli Village
Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk,
Kolar – 563 130.
… Petitioners

(By Sri R.V. Anand, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka
by Malur Police
Kolar District-563 130
State Public Prosecutor
Attached to High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
-2-

2. Smt. Pratima D.M.
D/o late Munikrishnappa
Aged about 20 years
Resident of Chikkadombarapalya Village
Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk
Kolar – 563 130, Karnataka.
… Respondents
(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP for R1;
R2-Served and absent)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.213/2018 of Malur Police
Station, Kolar District, for the offences punishable under
Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506B r/w Section
34 of Indian Penal Code.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day
the Court made the following:-

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by petitioners/

accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to

release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.213/2018 of

Malur Police Station, for the offence punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506B r/w 34 of IPC and also

under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
-3-

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State. Though notice has

been served to the complainant through Court, she has

remained absent.

3. The gist of the complaint is that on 16.12.2017 at

about 10.00 a.m. when she was inside the house, one

Sumithramma, Chandra Reddy came to the house of the

complainant and took objections for her marriage with

Shashikumar-petitioner No.1 and abused her taking the

name of the caste and threatened to kill her by pouring

petrol. He further alleged that her husband Shashikumar

also sated that he did mistake in marrying her and put

threat to her in the middle of the road. On the basis of the

complaint, a case has been registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the alleged incident has taken place on

16.12.2017 and a complaint came to be filed only on
-4-

26.6.2018. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint.

He further submitted that the allegations made in the

complaint appears that accused took objections for the

inter-caste marriage and as such there was some

altercation between the parties and in order to take revenge

the said complaint has been filed. He further submitted

that already accused Nos.3 and 4 have been released on

bail. On the ground of parity, accused Nos.1 and 2 are also

entitled to be released on bail. In order to substantiate his

contention he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and another reported in (2005)7 SCC 226. He further

submitted that, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be

imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these

grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to release the

petitioners on anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the

complainant has given her further statement explaining the
-5-

delay in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that

complainant has been insulted and humiliated by raising

the name of the caste and contents of the complaint cannot

be brushed aside. He further submitted that there is a

clear cut bar under Section 18 of the Act to grant

anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss

the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and I have perused the records.

7. As could be seen from the contents of the

complaint, the marriage of accused No.1 has taken place

with the girl belonging to the caste of the complainant and

it is a inter-caste marriage. It is alleged in the complaint

that the alleged incident has taken place on 16.12.2017,

the case has been registered on 26.6..2018. There is no

explanation put-forth to explain the delay. Though it is

contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader

that in the further statement of the complaint the
-6-

prosecution has explained the delay, regarding further

statement of the complaint it only goes to show that efforts

have been made to explain the delay.

8. As could be seen from the records under the

similar facts and circumstances already accused Nos.3 and

4 have been released on bail by order dated 28.8.2018 in

Criminal Petition No.5390/2018. On the ground of parity,

this Court released the petitioners/accused on anticipatory

bail. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the

petitioners/accused have made out a case to allow the

petition.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released

on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime

No.213/2018 of Malur Police Station, for the offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506B of IPC

and also under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA)

Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:
-7-

i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties
each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.

ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating
Officer within 15 days from today.

iii) They shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence directly or indirectly.

iv) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
trial Court without prior permission of the
Court.

v) They shall give their attendance once in 15
days to the Investigating Agency in between
10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. till the charge sheet
is filed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*AP/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation