IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9300/2018 BETWEEN:
K.K. Raju S/o Pullaiah Aged about 51 years R/at No.185, Muneshwaranagara Kattigenahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560 064.
(By Sri K. Srinivasa, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Yelahanka P.S.
Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. B.G. Namitha Mahesh, HCGP) .…Petitioner … Respondent 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.136/2018 of Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
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 petitioner/ accused No.6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.136/2018 of Yelahanka police station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 506 r/w 140 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the case are that the complainant was having ancestral property in old Sy.No.108, new Sy.No.185/3. The said lands have been acquired by way of Gift Deed and the said Gift Deed was misplaced and the complainant had visited the spot, at that time it is noticed that some houses are constructed and against the said land complainant had filed a civil suit before the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli in O.S.No.177/2018 and on 17.5.2018 at about 8.30 A.M. she visited the spot and there some persons were standing along with petitioner/accused and they abused by taking the name of the caste and also warned her that if she come again to the land they will take and buried her in the said land. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that civil disputes are pending between the parties, only to take revenge a false case has been registered against the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that the said complaint is politically motivated only to grab the land. There is no material to show that the petitioner/accused has abused by taking the name of the caste, the provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act are not attracted, there is no prima facie material to connect the accused to the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties and the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the presence of the petitioner/accused at the place of incident is borne out from the records and he is the purchaser of the said land by creating the documents and there are clear cut words which have been used by taking the name of the caste towards the complainant. At this juncture, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. She further submitted that there is bar under Section 18-A of the Act to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. 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.
7. Though it is alleged that there are civil disputes, on close reading of the complaint the presence of the petitioner/accused at the place of incident is also notified and even there are clear words which have been used by taking the name of the caste and even there is a threat that if she came to the said land they are going to buried in the said land itself. There are serious allegations have been made as against the petitioner/accused. Under the said facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
However, liberty has been given to the petitioner/accused, after he surrender before the Court below, and file an application for bail. If such application is filed, the Court may consider the bail application without going to the above observation, as expeditiously as possible.
*AP/-
Sd/- JUDGE