IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7382/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Manjunatha S/o Narasanna Aged about 24 years 2. D Ranganna S/o Doddanna Aged about 45 years 3. Narasimhamurthy S/o Javan Ugrappa Aged about 40 years 4. Hanumanthraya S/o Dibbanna Aged about 38 years 5. Narasimhamurthy S/o Krishnappa Aged about 25 years Petitioners No.1 to 5 are r/at Mangalavagada Village Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-572 116.
6. Subramanya S/o Pandappa Aged about 20 years 7. Shivaraja S/o Currant Eranna Aged about 24 years Petitioners No.7 and 8 are R/at V H Palya, Mangalavagad Post Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-572 116.
8. Dhanush S/o Augonarayanappa Aged about 19 years R/o Marur Village Mangalavagada Post Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-572 116.
9. Lakshmana S/o Late Avalappa Aged about 38 years 10. Harisha S/o Narasimha Aged about 20 years 11. Avalappa S/o Govindappa Aged about 20 years 12. Manjunatha S/o Koriranganna Aged about 22 years 13. Narasimhamurthy S/o Narasimhanna Aged about 24 years Petitioners No.9 to 13 are R/at Managalawada Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-572 116. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri Lakshmikanth K, Adv.) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By Arasikere Police Pavagda Circle Tumkur District Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Bettadathimmappa S/o Hanumantharayappa Aged about 23 years 3. Kumar S/o Hanumantharayappa Aged about 24 years 4. Naveen Kumar S/o Hanumantharayappa Aged about 22 years 5. Mohan Kumar S/o Hanumantharaya Aged about 25 years 6. Govinda S/o Thimmaiah Aged about 21 years 7. Kusha Kumar S/o Malleshappa Aged about 22 years 8. H Manjunatha S/o Hanumantharaya Aged about 26 years 9. S Suresh S/o Hanumantharaya Aged about 24 years 10. Hanumakka W/o Hanumantharaya Aged about 45 years 11. Lakshmidevi W/o Giriyappa Aged about 44 years 12. Hallakka W/o Chikkahanumanthappa Aged about 40 years 13. Rathnamma W/o Bettathimmappa Aged about 44 years Respondents No.2 to 13 are R/at Mangalawada Village Pavagada Taluk Tumkuru District-572 116. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP for R1 R2 to R13 served and unrepresented) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No.90/2017 of Arasikere P.S., Tumakuru, for the offences P/U/Ss 143, 147, 504, 506, 109, 448, 323, 324, 355 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 109, 504, 448, 324, 148, 355, 323, 143, 147 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.90/2017.
2. Since the petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, in view of the specific bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, firstly, the Court has to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint and other material collected during investigation makes out a case under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The averments in the complaint are that on *20.08.2017 the complainant by name Bettada Thimmappa S/o Hanumantharayappa gave a complaint before the respondent police alleging that he is residing at Mangalavada Village and belongs to Schedule caste community. On 19.08.2017 at about 9.30 p.m. the complainant along with Govindaraju S/o Thimmaiah had gone to answer second nature call to the lake. By that time, the accused persons named in the complaint after seeing the complainant and others abused them in filthy language by taking the name of caste and kicked with slipper legs and assaulted with stones and clubs. When the complainant and others escaped from their *Corrected vide Court order dated 15.11.2017.
clutches and came to drama place, by that time, one Ranganna, head of Vokkaliga Community instigated his community people and about 50-60 persons belonging to upper caste entered into A.K Colony and assaulted the complainant and others. On the basis of the said allegations, case came to be registered for the offences under the provisions of IPC as well as under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Though respondents 2 to 13 were served with notice of the petition, they remained absent.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record including the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioners.
6. The complaint averments itself shows the accused persons named in the complaint and thereafter about 50-60 persons belonging to upper caste abused the complainant and others by taking the name of caste. There are no specific allegations in the complaint against each of the accused persons as to which accused person used particular word. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that all the accused persons abused the complainant and others in one single abusive word. Therefore, it is a matter of trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that at this stage it will not constitute the offence alleged under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be an absolute bar in maintaining the petition seeking anticipatory bail.
7. So far as other IPC offences are concerned, it is contended by the petitioners that they are innocent and there is a false implication of the petitioners in the case. Except the offences alleged under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, all other offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 109, 504, 448, 324, 148, 355, 323, 143, 147 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.90/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each and shall furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp