SHANTAWWA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 are seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.43/2023 for the offences punishable under Sec. 323, 354, 376(2)(N), 420, 504 and 506 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ ST Act ") and Sec. 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2008. They have contended that they are innocent persons and not committed the alleged offences. The allegations against them are vague in nature and concocted. There is a delay of more than five days in filing the complaint and no reasons are forthcoming for the delay. It is alleged that the incident took place when complainant went to the house of appellants. It indicates that they had no intention or motive to commit alleged offences.

(2.) Appellant No.1 is aged and suffering from age related disorders. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are married daughters and appellant No.4 is the husband of appellant No.3 and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are residing separately. As the alleged incident took place inside the house of accused No.1, offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST Act, are not attracted. The only allegations against appellants are that they have assaulted and committed alleged atrocity on her which does not attracted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC. Since complainant is not known to the appellants, there was no question of they knowing the caste of complainant. These allegations are cooked up to rope them in under the provisions of Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST Act . Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the appellants, their custodial interrogation is not required and prays to allow the petition and release them on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Relying upon the following decisions, learned counsel for appellants submitted that as per these decisions, the prosecution has failed to make out a prima facie case against the appellants and as such they are entitled for anticipatory bail.