IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.546/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Hanumantharayappa @ Hanumantha Reddy, S/o late Shankaraiah, Aged about 66 years, R/at Manangi Village, Gulur Hobli, Tamukuru Taluk: 572 118.
2. Dinesha, S/o Hanumantharayappa @ Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 36 years.
3. Bhuvanesha, S/o Hanumantharayappa @ Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 32 years.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are R/at No.25, Andrahally Main Road, Kalikanagar, Bengaluru- 560 091.
4. Gangamayamma, W/o Hanumantharayappa @ Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/at Manangi Village, Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk: 572 118.
(By Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy C., Advocate) AND:
1. State by Rural Police Station, Tumakuru, Represented by S.P.P. High Court of Karnataka, At Bengaluru – 560 001.
…Petitioners 2. Chandraiah E., S/o Eraiah, Aged about 41 years, Member of Grama Panchayath of Gulur, R/a Manangi Village, Gulur Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk: 572 118. …Respondents (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) R2 – served & unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.284/2018 of Tumkur Rural Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 and under Sections, 34, 504, 506, 354, 323 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.284/2018 of Tumkur Rural Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 34, 504, 506, 354, 323 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, complainant is the member of Grama Panchayath, Gulur. On 22.12.2018 at about 12 noon he was in a panchayath, Panchayath Development Officer came there and took him near the house of petitioner/accused No.1 to destroy the compound wall which was constructed on a public road. Even in spite of request, accused No.1 did not remove the compound wall. At that time the staff of the Panchayath Development Officer destroyed the compound wall. Due to which the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. came near the house of the complainant and abused them with filthy language and when the wife of the complainant opened the door they caught hold of the caller of the complainant’s shirt and when wife of the complainant came for his rescue, they also abused her by taking the name of the accused and assaulted her and abused her. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said case has been registered as a counter blast, as earlier to the alleged incident the petitioners/accused have registered a case in Crime No.281/2018. He further submitted that there is no specific allegations or overt acts alleged against each of the petitioners. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act are not attracted so as to release the petitioners/accused on bail. He further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners/accused went near the house of the complainant, they have taken the name of the caste and abused and assaulted the complainant and his wife and thereafter they have committed the alleged offences. She further submitted that in view of Section 18A of the Act there is a bar to the Court to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
Though notice is served to the complainant, he has remained absent.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials though there is no specific averments made in the complaint to show that who actually uttered and abused by taking the name of the caste. Even the contents of the complaint if it is taken into consideration it indicates that the said uttering of the words are prior to the complainant’s wife opening the door, they are general in nature and no specific overt acts have been stated in this behalf to show that who abused by taking the name of the caste. Even the contents of the complaint also does not disclose the fact that the accused persons knowing fully well that the complainant and his wife belongs to the same caste and with an intention to insult in the public view they have taken the name of the caste and abused. It is well settled principles of law that there is no absolute bar under Section 18A of the Act for grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454. At paragraph 79.2 it has been observed as under:
“79.2. There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar and N.T.Desai and clarify the judgment of this Court in Balothia and Manju Devi.
8. On close reading of the said judgment and the complaint there is no bar to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail. Even on going through the contents of the complaint and other material, no serious injuries have been caused to the complainant or his wife. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I feel that, if by imposing some stringent conditions, the petitioners/accused are order to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.284/2018 of Tumkur Rural Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 34, 504, 506, 354, 323 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
iii) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) They shall mark their attendance in the jurisdictional police once in 15 days between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
v) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court.
In view of disposal of the petition, IA No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-