IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8973/2018 BETWEEN 1. JAGADISH S/O NEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 2. JNANESH S/O NAGESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 3. HARSHA GOWDA @ HARSHA PATEL S/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 4. YATISH S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 5. HARISH S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 6. VINAY @ VINAY KUMAR S/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 7. PRATHAP S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 8. PRAMOD S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 9. YATISH S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 10. GURURAJA S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 11. AKASH M.D., S/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 12. SWAMY S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 13. KUMAR S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 14. SATISH S/O BHYTAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 15. THIRTHESH S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 16. DANESHA @ DANAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 17. PUSHPAKARA @ PUSHKAR S/O ARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 18. NAGARAJ S/O ARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 19. GANGADHARA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 20. MOHAN S/O SHAKUNTHRAJ AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 21. SURESHA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 22. VENKATESH @ VENKATESHAPPA S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY HOLEHONNURU POLICE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001 (BY A. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITON IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.340/2018 REGISTERED BY HOLEHONNUR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324 AND 354 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r),3(1)(w) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 22 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant them anticipatory bail in Crime No.340/2018 of Holehonnur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 354 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that since fifteen days from the date of lodging of the complaint, the panchayath personnel were not letting the water to the colony of the complainant and as such on 18.09.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., one Kumar, on going to the house of the waterman asked as to why he was not letting the water properly at that time a quarrel took place in between them. It is further alleged that on 22.09.2018, while the complainant was talking with Hanumantharaju, Kantharaj, Jnanesh near the house of complainant at that time the petitioners have formed the unlawful assembly holding lethal weapons and abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste and assaulted him, Hanumantharaju and others, thereby caused injuries. It is further alleged that when the remaining persons came for pacifying quarrel the accused persons assaulted them also. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no prima facie material to connect Section 3 of the Atrocities Act. He further submitted that a false case has been registered against these petitioners, no specific overt acts has been stated and even with regard to Section 3 of SC/ST Act is concerned, the allegations in the complaint are in omnibus. He further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners by constituting unlawful assembly assaulted the complainant and others and abused by taking the name of the caste. He further submitted that the club, chopper and other material have been recovered at the instances of the accused persons. He further submits that if the petitioners were released on bail, they may abscond and may not be available for investigation and also they may tamper with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records, it indicates that the complaint has been registered on 22.09.2018 alleging that the waterman had not let water and because of that enmity they came and asked the waterman and then abused by taking the name of the caste. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint the complaint does not disclose the fact that who actually abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste. There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in the cases under the Atrocities Acts and no prima facie case is made out or otherwise there judicial scrutiny the complaint is to be prima facie malafide and it appears that a false case is registered against the 22 accused petitioners and even there is no specification about the weapons used by them. It is well settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2008 (6) SCC 454 wherein it has been held that 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 the prima facie malafide. By taking the said ratio the petitioners have made out a case to exercise power under Section 483 of the Cr.P.C. Further, as could be seen the charge sheet materials, the accused have been charged under various Sections and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under such circumstances, I feel that if the petitioners are ordered to released by imposing some stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused/petitioners are granted anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest in Crime No.340/2018 of Holehonnur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 354 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, the petitioners herein are ordered to be released, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Each petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today.
iii) They shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required.
iv) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer once in fifteen days between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the charge sheet is filed.
vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*