The court asserted the importance of considering age and gender in bail decisions, emphasizing that the Trial Court's failure to do so constituted grounds for granting bail.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant, who is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.122/2021 of the respondent – Police, is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 3 41, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the order dated 04.11.2024 passed in SPL.C.No.46/2022 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara.

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that, on 15.12.2021, around 06.30 p.m., when the complainant was walking on the left side of the road near the house of Basavamurthy, accused Nos.1 and 2 were going on a bike in a rash and negligent manner, as if they were going to hit the complainant.

When the complainant questioned the rash and negligent driving, accused No.2 scolded the complainant by holding his shirt collar and threatened him with dire consequences. The accused No.1 also scolded the complainant by naming the caste and also insulted him in public road and also threatened him with dire consequences. In the meantime, the said quarrel was pacified by the intervention of the villagers. Hence, he lodges a complaint.

3. The respondent No.1 – Police, after conducting the investigation, submitted charge sheet. The bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard Sri. Prasanna Kumar B, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and she is innocent of the alleged offences.

6. It is further submitted that the ingredients of the SC/ST (POA) Act would not attract against the appellant as she belongs to the same community. Moreover, the allegation made against her is that she threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and she may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State vehemently opposed the said submissions and prays to reject the bail.

8. Though the notice was served to respondent No.2, he is unrepresented.

9. Having heard the learned for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it would indicate that the appellant is arraigned as accused No.2 and she belongs to the scheduled caste. Allegations are made out against her that she threatened the complainant by holding the shirt collar of the complainant as the complainant shouted towards her when she was going along with accused No.1 on the motorbike.

10. Having considered that the appellant is aged about 34 years and she is a woman, it is appropriate to grant bail.

It is unfortunate that the Trial Court did not consider the bail by reading the averments of the charge sheet or the averments of the complaint. It is also unfortunate for the appellant to be in judicial custody even though she belongs to woman category and having the right to be released on bail of which the alleged offence stated to have been committed by her.

11. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.