Karnataka High Court Grants Bail Amidst Reconciliation Efforts in Domestic Abuse Case

Case Title: Hanish Abdul Khadar vs. State of Karnataka & Shilpa

Case Number: CRL.A No. 582 of 2024

Dated On: 21^st May, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Rachiah

FACTS OF THE CASE

Hanish Abdul Khadar and Shilpa were married on July 15, 2021. Following their marriage, the couple began residing at Shobha Arcades Apartment in Horamavu, Bangalore. Despite the initial period of settling into their married life, their relationship soon became strained. The environment in their household was marked by frequent quarrels and conflicts, which disrupted their domestic harmony. According to the complaint filed by Shilpa, she faced continuous harassment from Hanish. She alleged that Hanish subjected her to various forms of mistreatment and failed to take proper care of her. The harassment was not limited to physical neglect but also involved emotional and psychological abuse. Shilpa’s dissatisfaction and distress grew as she felt unsupported and mistreated in her matrimonial home. Despite the ongoing marital issues, Shilpa became pregnant and gave birth to a child on April 5, 2022. The birth of their child, instead of bringing the couple closer, further strained their relationship. Shilpa alleged that after the birth of their child, Hanish deserted her. She claimed that he threw her out of their home, citing her scheduled caste background as the primary reason for such drastic action. This act of desertion left Shilpa and their newborn child without support or shelter. Aggrieved by the treatment she received, Shilpa lodged a formal complaint against Hanish with the Hennur Police Station. The police registered a case under Crime No.456/2023. Following the registration of the complaint, the police conducted an investigation into the allegations. The investigation culminated in the submission of a charge sheet against Hanish, detailing the alleged offences and the evidence gathered.

ISSUES 

1. Whether the order passed by the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.2244/2024 dated 05.03.2024, which denied bail to Hanish Abdul Khadar, should be set aside.
2. Whether the allegations that Hanish Abdul Khadar deserted and harassed Shilpa based on her scheduled caste background are substantiated and justify the charges under Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Whether the reported reconciliation and mutual decision to live together between Hanish Abdul Khadar and Shilpa should influence the court’s decision to grant bail to Hanish, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

1. Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband):

1. • This section deals with the cruelty inflicted by the husband or his relatives on the wife, which includes any willful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.

2. Section 354 (Assault or Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Outrage Her Modesty):

1. • This section punishes anyone who assaults or uses criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

3. Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation):

1. • This section deals with the offense of criminal intimidation, where a person threatens another with injury to their person, reputation, or property, with the intent to cause alarm.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act):

1. Section 3(1)(a):

1. • This section punishes any person who forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance.

2. Section 3(1)(r):

1. • This section punishes anyone who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

3. Section 3(2)(va):

1. • This section provides for enhanced punishment for offenses under the Indian Penal Code, committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

4. Section 3(1)(w)(i):

1. • This section deals with the punishment for any person who, being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed.

Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act, 1989:

• This provision allows for an appeal against the order of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court denying bail to an accused person. The section ensures that the accused has the right to appeal to a higher court for the grant of bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, Hanish Abdul Khadar, through his counsel, contended that the allegations made by his wife, Shilpa, stemmed from a series of misunderstandings and misconceptions. He argued that despite the serious nature of the accusations, Shilpa had agreed to reconcile with him. The couple had decided to resolve their differences and live together again. The appellant’s counsel emphasised that the willingness to reconcile and cohabit suggested that the situation had been misinterpreted and was capable of amicable resolution outside the judicial process. Hanish’s counsel further argued that the offences charged against him under Sections 498A, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were not severe enough to warrant continued denial of bail. It was highlighted that the alleged offences did not involve punishment with death or imprisonment for life, thus meriting consideration for bail. Additionally, the appellant assured the court of his commitment to abide by any conditions imposed as part of his bail. He pledged to appear before the court on all specified dates and to refrain from tampering with evidence or intimidating prosecution witnesses. The counsel stressed that these assurances mitigated the risks associated with granting bail, ensuring compliance with legal protocols and protection of the complainant’s interests. The appellant’s counsel posited that granting bail would facilitate the restoration of the couple’s matrimonial life, benefiting both parties and their child. They argued that the judicial system should support the reconciliation process, enabling the family to overcome past grievances and build a stable future together. The counsel urged the court to consider the broader social and familial implications of granting bail, promoting harmony and resolution over prolonged litigation. These contentions underscored the appellant’s position that the allegations were based on misunderstandings, the offences did not justify prolonged detention, and the reconciliation between the parties warranted a compassionate and practical approach by the court in granting bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by the State Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the appellant’s appeal for bail. They argued that the allegations levelled against the appellant by his wife, Shilpa, were of a grave nature and warranted serious consideration. The respondent contended that the accusations of harassment, emotional abuse, and discrimination based on caste were significant and could not be dismissed lightly. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted the potential risk of the appellant committing similar offences if released on bail. Given the severity of the charges and the history of discord in the marital relationship, there was concern that granting bail might embolden the appellant to engage in further misconduct or intimidation towards the complainant or other potential witnesses. This risk underscored the necessity of ensuring the safety and security of the complainant and upholding the integrity of the judicial process. The respondent stressed the importance of obtaining formal confirmation from the complainant, Shilpa, regarding any purported reconciliation or settlement between the parties. Without a clear and unequivocal statement from Shilpa, it was argued that the court could not rely solely on the appellant’s assertions regarding reconciliation. The respondent emphasised the need for the complainant’s affidavit or appearance in court to corroborate any claims of reconciliation and assess the voluntariness and sincerity of such actions. In conclusion, the respondent urged the court to deny the appellant’s appeal for bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of reoffending, and the absence of clear evidence or confirmation of reconciliation. They emphasised the need to prioritise the protection and welfare of the complainant, ensuring her safety and access to justice without undue influence or intimidation. These contentions presented by the respondent underscored the gravity of the allegations, the potential risks associated with granting bail, and the necessity of formal confirmation from the complainant regarding any reconciliation or settlement between the parties.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

After carefully considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the contents of the charge sheet, the court acknowledged the strained nature of the marital relationship between the appellant, Hanish Abdul Khadar, and the respondent, Shilpa. The court noted the serious allegations of harassment, emotional abuse, and discrimination based on caste raised by Shilpa against Hanish. However, the court also took into account the appellant’s contention regarding the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. The reported willingness of Hanish and Shilpa to resolve their differences and live together again suggested the potential for a peaceful resolution outside the judicial process.

In light of the above considerations, the court proceeded to grant bail to the appellant, Hanish Abdul Khadar. The court recognized the importance of facilitating the restoration of the matrimonial life of the parties involved. It emphasised the need to support efforts towards reconciliation and harmony within the family, particularly for the well-being of their child.

The court imposed specific conditions on the bail granted to Hanish Abdul Khadar to ensure compliance with legal protocols and safeguard the interests of the complainant, Shilpa. These conditions included the appellant’s mandatory appearance before the court on all specified dates, refraining from tampering with evidence or intimidating prosecution witnesses, and complying with any other directives issued by the court. Furthermore, the court warned that any violation of the bail conditions would result in the prosecution being at liberty to seek the cancellation of bail. This provision served as a deterrent against potential misconduct by the appellant and reinforced the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal process.

In conclusion, the court’s judgement aimed to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the complainant’s interests. It sought to facilitate the reconciliation process while ensuring accountability and adherence to legal norms, thereby promoting the principles of justice and equity in the resolution of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view udgement