IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 3170/2019 BETWEEN MANJUNATHA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KAGGALAHALLI CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN NO. 561 203. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.V. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY DODDABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.216/2018 OF DODDABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 323, 504 AND 508 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r) AND (S) OF THE SC/ST ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A3) and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State. Perused the records.
2. Learned HCGP submits that, the complainant has been notified with regard to filing of this petition and in spite of that, the complainant remained absent.
3. The allegations made against the accused persons including this petitioner (A3) is that, on 15.11.2018 at about 1.00 p.m., the complainant along with one Byregowda went to Doddaballapura City Court premises to attend some work and they were standing near the Court, at that time, the accused along with the co-accused, abused him in filthy language referring to his caste by saying “Vaddananna Magane”. It is stated that, at that point of time, Manjunath and Basavaraju also joined the accused and they have also abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste that “Vaddananna Maga” and threatened him with dire consequences of life that ‘ Ninnanna Petrol Haki Suttu Biduttene” and the said Basavaraju held the collar of the complainant. At that time the public present there, viz., Byregowda, Suresh, Murali have listened the hurling of the accused towards the complainant and observed the dispute between the complainant and the accused persons, and came to the rescue of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the other co-accused persons have already been released on bail. But, particularly when the complaint averments reveal that, the allegations attract Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Special Enactment to enlarge the petitioner on bail, particularly anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.PC.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the statement of Mr. Suresh and Mr. Murali, the allegation attracts the provision of Atrocities Act. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to delve upon the findings recorded by the trial Court, in view of the specific bar contained under Section 18 of the Special Enactment. Hence, the petition is liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
However, the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner may be permitted to make necessary application before the concerned jurisdictional Court seeking for bail and a direction may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the application to be filed by the petitioner on the same day.
No such direction as sought for by the petitioner can be granted. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of any such application to be filed by the petitioner seeking for bail, as expeditiously as possible without undue delay.
KGR* Sd/-
JUDGE