Bengaluru, April 19, 2024 – The LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), granted anticipatory bail to Smt. D.N. Vaishnavi @ Vyshnavi Devanahalli Nagaraj, aged 45, in connection with Crime No. 308/2023 registered at the Annapoorneshwari Police Station. The case involved serious allegations under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically Section 3(2)(v-a), along with Sections 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Special Judge, Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, allowed the petition (Crl. Misc. No. 3124/2024), accepting the defense’s argument that the petitioner’s presence at the scene of the crime was highly doubtful based on the Investigating Officer’s (I.O.) own documents.
The Background of the Dispute
The case originated from a private complaint (PCR) filed by the second respondent, Smt. V. Netravathi, aged 43, against the petitioner and her husband, Y.N. Raghavendra, who are neighbours in the Nagarabhavi area of Bengaluru.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner and her husband had been disturbing her peaceful possession. The specific incident cited in the police complaint involved the accused allegedly allowing water to sprinkle into the complainant’s house, particularly in the bedroom, and using abusive language on January 1, 2023, while attempting to stop the completion of the complainant’s house construction. The complaint was ultimately registered for IPC offenses and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant’s counsel, however, specified in the objection that the original PCR had included a wider array of charges, including Sections 120A, 506, 509, 354, 354A, 354B, and 354D read with Section 34 of the IPC, and multiple sections of the SC/ST Act, claiming the accused were making “hectic attempts to drive away” her family from the locality. It was further alleged that the petitioner’s husband, Raghavendra, had “freaked out holding a cricket bat” and used foul language, scolding the complainant by referring to her belonging to a “lower caste.”
Petitioner’s Defense and Court’s Crucial Finding
The petitioner, represented by Sri. Mohan Murthy, Advocate, submitted that the charges were false and filed only to harass her. The defense counsel pointed out a significant inconsistency in the prosecution’s own records.
The defense highlighted that the Investigating Officer had filed a charge sheet but had shown the present accused, Smt. D.N. Vaishnavi, as absconding. More critically, the counsel argued that the police had already filed a final report against the co-accused (the petitioner’s husband, Raghavendra), concluding there was no material against him and noting his call details showed he was near Davanagere, not at the location of the alleged crime.
Applying the same logic, the defense pointed to Page-36 of the I.O.’s records, which allegedly indicated that Smt. Vaishnavi was within the limits of Chitradurga jurisdiction at the time of the incident. The petitioner contended that the allegations were prima facie false, especially since the I.O. proceeded to file a charge sheet against her alone despite the lack of evidence of her presence, which the defense argued was done “for the reasons known to the Investigating Officer.”
The Judicial Reasoning
The Special Judge evaluated the material and accepted the petitioner’s arguments. Answering the point of consideration in the affirmative, the Court found the submission regarding the tower location evidence reasonable.
The order stated: “On going through the materials on record, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as per the tower location placed by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet, discloses the present accused being presented at the spot itself is doubtful as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems reasonable.”
The Court then referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s. Union of India, which provides guidance on the maintainability of anticipatory bail in cases under the SC/ST Act. The ratio of this judgment dictates that anticipatory bail is not completely barred if a prima facie case is not made out.
The Judge concluded: “the allegations made in the PCR and the charge sheet and the documents placed for the petitioner prima facie no case is made out. As such benefit of the citation is to be given to the accused seems reasonable.”
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
Based on these findings, the Court allowed the petition. Smt. D.N. Vaishnavi was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Cr. No. 308/2023 upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), a cash surety of Rs. 5,000/-, and furnishing one surety of a close relative.
The bail was granted subject to the following standard conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
- She shall regularly appear before the IO as and when called for the purpose of investigation.
- She shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
- She shall not indulge in any other offense.
The IO was given the liberty to move the court for cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated. The order signifies a judicial determination that the technical evidence presented by the defense successfully challenged the prima facie application of the stringent SC/ST Act provisions against the accused.