KABC010017722023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2023.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
PETITIONER/S:
1. Smt.P.Gayathri,
W/o Somashekar,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at Flat No.302,
Sri.Venkateshwara Paradise,
5th Main, Tavarekere Road,
Bangalore-29.
2. Smt. Shivani S.
W/o Sitra Akand,
Aged aobut 27 years,
R/at Flat No.302,
Sri.Venkateshwara Paradise,
5th Main, Tavarekere Road,
Bangalore-29.
3. Sitra Akand,
Father name not known,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.12, Saranya Enclave,
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
2
Shirdi Sai Nagar,
Kundanahalli Gate, VTC Vemalur,
Bangalore.
(Rep. by Sri.A.Sampath., Advocate)
-V/sRESPONDENT/S: 1. The State of Karnataka,
By Yelahanka New Town Police
Station, Bangalore.
Rep. by learned Public Prosecutor
2. Smt.Jayanthi
W/o Gajendran
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.04, Arya Road, Ejipura,
Banbalore-47
Mobile No.7019887680.
(Rep. by Special Public prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 have instituted this
petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking for
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.387/2022
for
the
offences
punishable
under
sections 323, 354, 427, 448 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)
(r)(s)
of
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
2.

In the petition it is stated that, the petitioners are
innocent of the alleged offences and there is no such
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
3
connection
among
the
petitioners
and
the
complainant. The petitioner No.1 is an aged lady and
having good name and reputation in the society and
her family. The petitioner No.2 and 3 are daughter and
son in law of the petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2
recently delivered a child and is under treatment.
There is no connection whatsoever as alleged in the
complaint. The respondent No.1 police have registered
the false case on the instigation of the above Sangha
headed by the complainant only with an intention to
knock away the subject property. The petitioners have
not met the complainant and her friend and further
they have not abused them with caste at any point of
time nor have they assaulted and threatened the
complainant. On the other hand, the complainant and
her friends are threatening the petitioners by filing the
false complaint. The provisions of sec.3(1)(r)(s) are not
applicable. There are no ingredients to attract the
offence under the IPC. The petitioner No.1 being the
owner of the subject property, the allegation of
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
4
trespass is absolutely false and frivolous. The alleged
offences are non-bailable
but not punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. There is no prima facie
case made against the petitioners and there is no
ingredients to attract the provisions of SC/ST. The
averments of the complaint does not discloses the
cognizance of the offence punishable under the afore
said
Provisions.

The
respondent
police
have
intentionally in order to trouble the petitioners and to
malign
the
reputation
of
the
petitioners
have
registered the aforesaid case under the Provisions of
SC/ST and IPC. There is no materials placed on record
to show that the petitioners are guilty of the offences
alleged in the complaint and FIR. The petitioners are
permanent residents of the address given in the cause
title and having deep roots in the society. The
petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the
conditions to be imposed by this court and to furnish
satisfactory surety. Hence, they sought for bail.

Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
5
3.

After institution of this petition, the notice is ordered
to be issued to the complainant, who inturn appeared
before this court and duly represented by learned
Special Public Prosecutor.

4.

The
learned
Special
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
detailed objection opposing the bail petition on various
grounds and reiterated averments of complaint and
contended that the case is under investigation which
prima facie case is make out.

If the petitioners are
released on bail, they may tamper with the evidence
or threaten the witnesses, may abscond or may
commit similar offences. There is clear bar u/s 18A of
S.C./S.T. (P.O.A.) Act to grant anticipatory bail. Thus,
sought for rejection of petition.
5.

Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused
the records.

6.

The following points arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1. Whether the bail petition
filed by the petitioners under
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
6
Section 438 of
maintainable?

Cr.P.C.,
is
2. Whether the petitioners have
made out a ground for grant
of anticipatory bail?
3.
7.

What Order?

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1: In the “Affirmative”
Point No.2: In the “Affirmative”
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
8.

Point No.1 & 2 : The materials placed on record
would go to show that the respondent Police have
registered the case in Crime No.387/2022 for the
offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 427, 448
r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case as per the
complaint is that, on 08.12.2022 at about 7.00 p.m.,
when the complainant along with one Selvi were in the
office of Dalitha Sangharsha Samiti situated at Sai
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
7
Layout of M.S.Palya, the petitioners in furtherance of
their common intention have criminally trespassed
into her office and abused the complainant in filthy
language with reference to caste, stamped and
assaulted her by means of hands by holding her hair
tuft. Further, the petitioner No.3 has outraged the
modesty by assaulting and holding her dress and
broken her mobile phone.
9.

At the very outset, Mr.V.Shriram, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state has
taken
a
preliminary
objection
as
regard
the
maintainability of the present petition for grant of
anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., on the basis that
section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act bars application
of section 438 of Cr.P.C to any case involving an
accusation that a person has committed an offence
under that statute.
10.

Per contra
Mr.A.Sampath the learned
counsel for
petitioners argued that this court has got jurisdiction to
8
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
consider this petition for grant of anticipatory bail as the
bar on the applicability of section 438 of Cr.P.C shall not
apply to the cases under the SC/ST Act when the
complaint does not make out a prima facie case for
applicability of the provisions of the Act.
11.

With the rival contentions urged by both sides, it is just
and necessary to go through the materials available on
record. On close reading of sections 18 and 18A of the
SC and ST Act it reads as under;
“Section 18. Section 438 of the Code not to
apply to persons committing an offence
under the Act.
Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply
in relation to any case involving the arrest of
any person on an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act.
Section 18A. No enquiry or approval required
I) 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
9
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
procedure other than 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 judgement or order or direction of any Court.”
12.

On going through the said sections, it clearly goes to
show that if prima-facie there is any allegation made
by the complainant and the accusation is made,
prima-facie indicating the offence under the said Act,
under such circumstances, the bar will be there to
exercise the power under section 438 of Cr.P.C to grant
anticipatory bail. Admittedly, Section 18 and 18-A of
SC/ST (POA) Act creates a bar for invoking section 438
of Cr.P.C. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify
the averments in the complaint and to find out
whether an offence under section 3(1) of SC/ST (POA)
Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if
there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely
insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling
with caste name the accused is not entitle for
anticipatory bail as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in
10
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s Union India of others.
On the background of above provisions of law and also
pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is just and
proper to go through the contents of complaint lodged
by the complainant before the police.
13.

After meticulously going through the averments made
in the complaint it is forthcoming that the petitioners
said to have intentionally insulted with intent to
humiliate her by taking the name of caste and there is
no specific allegation in the complaint that any of the
accused had individually made caste denigrative
abuses. In the complaint though the word referring to
the caste has been used, but the said sentence which
has been so used is omnibus and is not referring to
any particular person and also who actually uttered
the said word is also very vague. It is not the case of
complainant that, the petitioners said to have abused
her with reference to her caste name as ‘Madigitti’ but
the complaint is silent about the caste of the
complainant. Apart from that there is no explanation in
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
11
the complaint about delay in filing complaint.

The
averments of the complaint clearly discloses that no
prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.
The offence alleged against the petitioners is not
punishable with life or death imprisonment. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioners may
not required.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned above, I am of the
opinion that the petitioners are entitled for grant of
anticipatory
bail
prosecution
could
and
be
the
apprehensions
suitably
met
by
of
the
imposing
stringent conditions. Accordingly, Point No.1 and 2 are
answered in the ‘ Affirmative’.
14.

Point No.3: In view of my findings on Point No.1 & 2, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The
Petition
filed
by
the
Petitioners under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
The Petitioners are ordered to be
released on bail in the event of their
arrest in Crime No.387/2022 on
execution of personal bond for
Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
12
Rs.1,00,000/-each with one surety for
the likesum subject to the following;
CONDITIONS
1. The petitioners shall appear
before the Investigating Officer
within 10 days from the date of
this
order
Investigating
and
assist
Officer
as
the
and
when required for the purpose
of investigation.
2. The Petitioners shall mark their
attendance before IO on every
Second Saturday between 9.00
am to 10.00 am., till filing of
final report.
3. The Petitioners shall appear
before
this
court
regularly
without fail.
4. The Petitioners shall not tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
5. The petitioners shall not leave
the jurisdiction of this Court
without prior permission.

Crl.Misc.No.568/2023
13
6. The
petitioners
indulge
in
shall
not
committing
any
offences.
7. It is open to the jurisdictional
police or the complainant to
seek cancellation of bail if &
when
petitioners
commit
breach of any of the above
conditions.
(Typed my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected, signed
and then pronounced in open court on this the 10 th day of February, 2023).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.