IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7265/2018 BETWEEN:
Mr. Anand Babu S/o. Mr. Narayan P.S. Aged about 35 years Residing at No.80-4/1 C.M. Engineering Works B. Oosman Khan Road Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M. Manjunath, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By S.J. Park Police Station S.J. Park Bengaluru Bengaluru City – 560 037. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.78/2018 of S.J. Park Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (P.A) Act and under Section 504, 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.78/2018 of S.J. Park Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 504, 506 of IPC.
2. Though notice is served to the complainant, he has remained absent.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.
4. The gist of the complaint is that there was some property dispute between the petitioner – accused and complainant and a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.4049/2017 and injunction has also been obtained. On 02.08.2018, the complainant came to the property and started demanding to accept copy of the summons. The said summons was in the name of the father of the petitioner – accused. But the complainant refused to produce the copy and threatened the petitioner and he also threatened not to open the shop. It is alleged in the complaint that at that time, the accused – petitioner abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste and also abuse him in a filthy language, physically man-handled and threatened him with life. On the basis of the compliant, a case was registered.
4. It is contended in the petition that there is no bar granting anticipatory bail in the case where it appears prima-facie case has not been made out under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act’). It is submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. It is further contended that civil suit is pending between the parties. In that light, the present complaint is filed with an intention to harass the petitioner. There are no valid grounds made out by the complainant. If bail is granted, he is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner – accused has committed an offence under the said Act. There is bar under Section 18(A) of the Act to release the petitioner – accused on anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the accused – petitioner is absconding from the date of registration of the case and if he is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced in this behalf.
7. A close reading of the complaint disclose that it is so vague as to the which caste the accused – petitioner belongs and he is referring to which caste of the complainant. It is not in dispute that civil suit is pending and that there is rivalry over the said property. There is no prima-facie material to attract Section 3 of said Act and as such, bar under Section 18(A) of the Act is not applicable to the present facts of the case and the Court has exercised the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioner-accused on bail. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Under such circumstance, I am of the opinion that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the accused/petitioner is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No.78/2018 of S.J. Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 504, 506 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Agency is directed to enlarge him on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
4. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station till the charge sheet is filed.
5. He is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 for interim bail does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE nms