IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9146/2018 BETWEEN:
K.Naveen Kumar S/o K Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.118/60, Hanadenahalli Village, Anugondanahobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru-560 067. …Petitioner (By Sri Karthik.P.M, Advocate for Sri Rakshit K.N., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka HAL Police Station, Bengaluru-560 017, Rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001. …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.520/2017 (Spl.C.No.307/2018) (PCR.No.43/2017) of HAL Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and EC.3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to release him on bail in Spl.Case No.307/2018 pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in PCR No.43/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC also under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (‘the Act’ for short).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Though the notice has been served on the complainant, he remained absent.
3. On the basis of a private complaint, investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed. It is the case of the complainant that he was having agricultural property bearing Sy.No.92 P-15 of Mavalli Village measuring 2 acres. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of Kadabisanahalli Village and they were acquainted with the complainant. Accused No.1 is carrying on the business of lending money and he used to take the documents and obtain signature of the poor people in order to grab their property. Accused No.2 is the body guard of accused No.1. It is further alleged that accused No.1 had approached the complainant asking to sell his land, when the complainant refused to sell his land then accused No.1 started insulting by taking the name of the caste and he also used to approach the group proclaiming in their presence and used to take the name of caste and thereby he has committed alleged offence. On the basis of the said complaint, after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner-accused No.2 is not having any connection with the alleged crime, the petitioner is not the person whose name has been mentioned in the charge sheet, it is one Mr. Naveen Reddy S/o Nagaraj. The police instead of securing the said person are making efforts to arrest the present petitioner who is entirely a different person. He further submitted that the petitioner has not taken any part and he has not abused the complainant by taking the name of caste as he comes from a respectable family. He is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that if the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted, then there is no question of apprehension and as such, the present petition is not maintainable in law. He further submitted that accused No.2 is the body guard of accused No.1 and he supported the act of accused No.1 at the time the alleged offence. He further submitted that there is a clear cut bar under Section 18A of the Act to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail. He further submitted that investigation has already been completed, the charge sheet has been filed, the accused No.2 has been examined and even the court below has issued NBW against the petitioner-accused No.2. There are no good grounds to release the petitioner- accused No.2 on bail. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not the same person as the one which has been mentioned in the charge sheet. It is his case that he is apprehending arrest in PCR No.43/2017 for the above said offences. Whether he is the same person or not is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of the trial. At this juncture, this court cannot go in detail of the case and hold detailed enquiry. I am conscious of the fact that if the accused is apprehending his arrest in any crime, he is entitled to seek release on anticipatory bail by exercising power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there is a bar under Section 18A of the Act and I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court. If the entire complaint is looked into the main allegation which has been made is against accused No.1. In so far as accused No.2 is concerned he is a rowdy sheeter who used to support the act of accused No.1. As per the complaint it is accused No.1 who used words by taking the name of caste but no such allegations has been made in this behalf as against accused No.2. Under these facts and circumstances, there is no prima-facie material to attract the provision of Section 3 of the Act. It is well settled principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kasinath Mahajan v/s State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2018 SC 1498 that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if there is prima-facie material.
9. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I feel that there are good grounds to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on anticipatory bail and even the other offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
10. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances, petition is allowed and petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in Spl.Case No.307/2018 pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in PCR No.43/2017 in the event of his arrest, subject to following conditions:
1. The petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency.
2. He shall surrender before the Investigating Agency within 15 days from today.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4. He shall be regular in attending the court as and when required.
5. He shall not involve in similar type of criminal activities.
6. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days for a period of 15 days or till the trial is concluded whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-