-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8298/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Venugopal Singh
S/o late Govardhan Singh
Aged about 29 years
R/a No.08, 3rd Cross
Jyothi Nagar, M.S.Palya
Occupation: Car Driver
Bengaluru-560 097.
2. Smt. Ahalya Bai
W/o late Govardhan Singh
Aged about 50 years
R/a No.08, 3rd Cross
Jyothi Nagar, M.S.Palya
House Wife,
Bengaluru-560 097.
3. Archana
W/o Gurudev Singh
D/o late Govardhan Singh
Aged about 25 years
R/a No.115, Gurukrupa
C.M. Extension
Near Rajanna House
Kyathasandra
Tumkur-572 104.
-2-
4. Gurudev Singh
S/o Raghunandan Singh
Aged about 31 years
R/a No.115, Gurukrupa
C.M. Extension
Near Rajanna House
Kyathasandra
Tumkur-572 104.
…Petitioners
(By Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Advocate)
AND:
The State
by Kodigehalli Police Station
Represented by the State Public prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent
(By Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, HCGP)
Sri Madhav Kashyap, Advocate for
Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for Complainant)
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.176/2018 of Kodigehalli
Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 354, 406, 342, 417, 506
r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z),
3(1) (za) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day
the Court made the following:-
-3-
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/
accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release
them on bail in Crime No.176/2018 of Kodigehalli Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 341, 354, 406, 342, 417, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC,
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z), 3(1)(zc) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’ for short).
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also the
learned counsel for the complainant.
3. The gist of the complaint is that accused No.1 fell
in love with the complainant and on 10.2.2012 they got
married at Dharmasthala and it was registered on
13.2.2012 in the office of the Registrar of Marriages,
-4-
Hebbal. Thereafter, accused No.1 started ill-treating and
blackmailing the complainant and asked her to pay certain
amount. It is further alleged that, accused No.1 started
saying that since complainant and her family are belongs
to Schedule Caste, he cannot take her to his house since
accused Nos.2 and 3 would object the same. Thereafter,
accused No.1 continued to have marital relationship with
the complainant. When the parents of the complainant
insisted accused No.1 to have arranged marriage, then
accused No.1 demanded dowry and marriage expenses and
thereafter the complainant’s family agreed for the same
and performed marriage. Despite performance of the
marriage, accused No.1 refused to take the complainant to
the matrimonial home on the ground that she belongs to
Scheduled Caste. It is further alleged that, thereafter
accused Nos.1 and 2 called the complainant and the
parents of the complainant to their home and a
panchayath was also held in this behalf and in the said
panchayath accused No.2 insulted the complainant by
-5-
stating that she will never approve her son’s marriage with
a person belongs to schedule caste. The accused Nos.2 to 4
abused the complainant and her family members and
made a derogatory remarks against the complainant’s
caste. The accused persons taunted the complainant for
being Adi Karnataka Schedule Caste and stated that it is
below their dignity to allow the complainant to live with
them and when the complainant went to the matrimonial
home, the accused persons stated that they had allowed to
live with them only to prevent any legal action against
them. Thereafter, again the ill-treatment and harassment
continued and accused persons threatened the
complainant that they will kill her if she intimate the ill-
treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons.
It is further alleged that it is accused Nos.3 and 4 abused
the complainant by stating the name of the caste and
threatened them in the public. It is further alleged that in
spite of the efforts made by the complainant, ill-treatment
and harassment continued and she has been threatened
-6-
and sent out of the house. As such, she filed a private
complaint.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners/accused that instead of filing a complaint as
contemplated under the law, she has filed a private
complaint. That itself clearly goes to show, only to harass
the petitioners/accused such a lengthy complaint has been
filed. It is further submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 are
not residing along with the petitioner/accused No.1 and
they are separately residing at Tumkur and there is no
connection between them and the complainant. It is
further submitted that the alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and only to
wreck vengeance against petitioner/accused No.1 and
others, complaint has been filed. He further submitted that
there is no prima facie material as against the
petitioners/accused. He also relied upon the decision of
Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 and submitted
-7-
that if no prima facie case has been made out, then under
such circumstances, this Court can exercise power under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and release the petitioners/accused
on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition
and to release the petitioners/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there is a
bar under Section 18(A) of the Act to release the
petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail if there is prima
facie material as against them. She further submitted that
the ingredients of the complaint if it is clearly looked into,
it is accused Nos.1 to 4 who have abused by taking the
name of the caste and also insulted and have not allowed
her to reside in the house, as she belongs to Adi Karnataka
Community. She further submitted that
petitioners/accused if they are released on bail, they may
abscond and may not be available for the trial. On these
grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
-8-
6. The learned counsel for the complainant also by
supporting the arguments of the learned High Court
Government Pleader submitted that there is prima facie
material as against the petitioners/accused and the
petitioners/accused are not entitled to be released on bail.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the
contents of the complaint and the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the records.
8. This Court is conscious of the fact that there is a
bar under Section 18(A) of the Act which reads as under:
“18A: (1) For the purposes of this Act,-
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a First Information Report
against any person; or
(b) the investigating officer shall not require
approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any
person,against whom an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act has
been made and no procedure other than
-9-that provided under this Act or the Code
shall apply.
(2) The provisions of Section 438 of
the Code shall not apply to a
case under this Act, notwithstanding
any judgment or order or direction of
any Court”.
A close reading of the said Section there is a bar to
release petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail. However,
in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath referred supra,
therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion
that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory
bail in cases under Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is
made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found
to be prima facie mala fide.
9. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law,
on close reading of the complaint it indicates that there is a
prima facie material as against the petitioners/accused to
show that they have abused the complainant by taking the
name of the caste and they have also not allowed the
– 10 –
complainant to reside in their house as she belongs to Adi
Karnataka Scheduled Caste.
10. All these materials clearly goes to show that in
the complaint, there is prima facie material and as such
the provisions of Section 18(A) of the Act will come into
play and the petitioners/accused are not entitled to be
released on anticipatory bail.
Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach
the trial Court. After surrender and in the event of filing an
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge them
on bail, the Court below is directed to expedite the said bail
application expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*AP/-
