KABC010159792022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V.,
B.A(L)., LL.B.

LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
PETITIONER/S
:
1. Smt. Veda
W/o Balakrishna,
Aged about 56 years.
2. Balakrishna
S/o Ponnuswamy,
Aged about 62 years,
Both are R/at Ittamadu,
BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 050.
(Rep.by Sri.GSM., Advocate)
-V/s-
RESPONDENT/S : 1. STATE BY
Channamanakere Achukattu PS,
Bengaluru.
2. Smt. Lalitha
W/o Ambalagan,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.537, 53rd Cross,
III Block, Rajajinagar,
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
2
Bengaluru-560 010.
(R1 Rep. by Public prosecutor),
(R2 Rep. by Sri.Ashok Kumar.,
Advocate)
ORDER
The petitioners/accused have filed this petition
under
section
438
of
Cr.P.C.,
seeking
for
anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime
No.141/2022
registered
by
respondent
police for the offences punishable under sections
420, 504, 506 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)
(s)
of
Scheduled
Caste
&
Scheduled
Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
2.

In the petition it is stated that, petitioners are
innocent of the offences alleged against them
and false allegations were made against them
with ulterior motive and police are trying to
arrest them. One Rajkumar is instrumental to file
this
false
complaint
against
the
petitioner
through the 2nd respondent. The said Rajkumar is
3
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
the 1st petitioner’s brother’s wife’s brother and
prior to this complaint similar complaint was
lodged by Mallika against this petitioner. In the
said case, these petitioners are obtained bail
from this Court in Crl.Mis. Petition No.2268/2021
and after investigation charge sheet has been
filed. In the said charge sheet it is specifically
stated that the complainant by name Mallika is
not belonging to Schedule Castes or Scheduled
Tribes, now the case is pending before II ACMM,
Bengaluru in CC No.3736/2022 wherein she has
given different version stating that she had paid
Rs.4,80,000/- to the accused for 2 chits. Itself
shows that these petitioners are not doing the
chit transaction only with an intention to harass
the petitioner, 2nd respondent by colluding with
the said Rajakumar and Mallika played fraud
against the petitioners. There is no ingredients to
attract the provisions of Atrocities Act and it is in
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
4
the civil in nature. The petitioners are not doing
any chit transactions of any point of time. Hence,
question of repayment of amount or abusing the
caste does not arise at all. 1 st petitioner is
acquitted for the offence u/sec.138 of NI Act,
which is filed by said Rajakumar. In the presence
of complainant’s counsel, Srinvas, Inspector,
DCRE has forced them to give blank signed
cheques and also to them that if she failed to
give blank cheques she will be fixed in a atrocity
case. Now to file this false case against the
petitioners, the said Inspector also played his
illegal role. Petitioners are husband and wife and
on 24.04.2022 they lost their son. 2 nd petitioner
is only earning member in his family and he is
suffering from diabetes and age related problems
and they never indulged in any illegal activities
and no criminal case except this false case filed
by
Smt.Mallika
in
CC
No.2268/2021.

The
5
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
petitioners are permanent residents of Bengaluru
and they are law abiding citizens and having
deep roots in society. The alleged offences are
not punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. They undertake to co-operate with IO, not to
hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and
ready to offer surety for their bail and they will
not abscond and they will abide by the all the
reasonable conditions that may be imposed in
the circumstances of the case. Hence, they
sought for bail.
3.

After institution of this petition,
the notice is
ordered to be issued to the complainant, who
inturn appeared before this court through her
counsel and has filed detailed objection stating
that the petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable either in fact or by law and
complainant is abused by the petitioners by
taking their caste name near the house of
6
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
petitioners i.e. outside the house in public place.
When
there
is
specific
averments
in
the
complaint itself, then Sec. 18 & 18(A) of the act
is applicable. In Para 04 of the petition itself the
petitioners have accepted that they abused her
referring to her caste “Neenobba asprushya
jaatiya hengasu, holeya madigaru neevu” this
itself prove prima facie case of the complainant.
One cheating case is already going on before II
ACMM, Bengalore in CC No.3736/2022. The
petitioners are habitual offenders and anti-social
elements. Both of them are innocent uneducated
women like the complainant and extract all the
money and cheat them. They are more suitable
to be behind the bar than in the civilized society.
They are already absconding. Petitioners have
unnecessarily trying to connect the Rajkumar
and Mallika into this case and thereby trying to
7
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
mislead this court and prays for rejection of the
bail petition.
4.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed
detailed objection opposing the bail petition on
various grounds and reiterated averments of
compliant and contended that 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 learned counsel for the complainant has
produced
the
judgement
in
Crl.

Petition
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
8
No.3055/2020 (Jagadeesh & Anr., Vs. State of
Karnataka & Anr.,)
7.

The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has
produced judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in
Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s Union of India and
others.

8.

The following points arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1.

Whether the bail petition filed
by
the
Section
petitioners
438
of
under
Cr.P.C.,
is
maintainable?
2.

Whether the petitioners have
made out a ground for grant of
anticipatory bail?

3.
9.

What Order?

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:
In the “affirmative”
Point No.2:
In the “affirmative”
9
Point No.3:
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
10.

POINT NO.1 & 2 : The materials placed on
record would go to show that the respondent
Police
have
registered
the
case
in
Crime
No.141/2022 for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC, and Sections.3(1)
(r)(s) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act
1989.

The
complainant alleges that petitioners abused in
filthy language by taking the name of her caste
when she demanded the petitioners to repay the
chit amount of Rs.5,70,000/- and threatened to
take her life.
11.

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
10
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
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. Further
the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that
section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act applies to the
present case since section 3(1)(r)(s) of that Act
has been added to the offences alleged against
the petitioners.
12.

Per contra Mr.Gangadhara Shetty.M., the learned
counsel for petitioners argued that this court has
got jurisdiction to 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
13.

Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
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 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
14.

Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
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 18A 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) and (2) 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
13
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
Hon’ble Apex court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s
Union of India and 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.
15.

After meticulously going through the averments
made in the complaint it is forthcoming that the
petitioners said to have abused the complainant
by taking the name of her caste as “ ?????? ??????
???
?????,
????
?????
???”.

It
is
important to note that the complainant in her
complaint has mentioned that she belong to
Scheduled Caste community and nowhere it is
mentioned
that
she
belong
to
‘Holeya’
or
‘Madiga’ Caste. Further the above referred abuse
was not made by referring the name of the caste
one mentioned in the complaint and it is also not
14
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
mentioned that the alleged abuse viewed by the
general public. The
allegation of abuse one
referred in the complaint is vague and general
and it is not made against particular accused. In
order to make out a prima facie case, statement
must be made in place within public view and
secondly statement is to be made only because
complainant belongs to that caste. The present
complaint does not discloses the statement as to
caste abuse by these petitioners within the
public view. The act has been done by the
petitioners only because complainant belongs to
SC/ST is also not forthcoming. No prima facie
case is made to attract the provisions of SC &
ST(POA) Act. The custodial interrogation may not
be required. The alleged offence under Atrocity
Act
are
not
punishable
with
death
or
life
imprisonment. The rest of alleged offences are
bailable in nature and also triable by the
15
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
Magistrate. Hence, it can be held that petitioners
are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as per
the dictum Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prithviraj Chauhan and Anr.,.
points
No.1
and
2
are
Accordingly,
answered
in
the
Affirmative.
16.

Point No.3:- In view of my findings on Point
No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The
bail
petition
filed
by
the
petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is
hereby allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be
released on bail in the event of their
arrest
in
execution
Crime
of
No.141/2022
personal
bond
on
for
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 15 days from the date of
16
Crl.Misc.No.5951/2022
this order and co-operate with
Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of
investigation.
2. The
petitioners shall appear
before the court on all the dates
of hearing.

3. The petitioners shall not tamper
the evidence or influence/deter
the witnesses nor shall they do
anything prejudicial to peace and
order in the civil society.
4. The petitioners shall not indulge
in committing any offences
(Typed my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected,
signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 1 st day of July,
2022).

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