IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.9257 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1. RAJU M @ RAJU M TALLUR S/O H. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O TALLURU VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 413 2. H.M. MUTTHESH S/O H. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O TALLURU VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 413 3. RUDRAGOWDA @ RUDRAGOWDA C PATIL S/O CHENNAVEERAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O MALLAAPURA VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 413 4. SALEEMULLA @ SHAMLULLA S/O NABISAB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O ANAVATTI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 413 5. MOHAMMED SAB MUKKUNDAR @ MOHAMMED @ SHANNU S/O HAMZAD SAD @ YUSUF SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O ANAVATTI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 413 (BY SRI. DIWAKARA.K, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANAVATTI POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.273/2017 OF ANAVATTI POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 504, 353, 355 AND 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R)(S)(M) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDED ACT, 2015.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 353, 355, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(r)(s) (m) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 registered in respondent police station in Crime No.273/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 & 6 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
4. The facts of the prosecution in brief are that the petitioners are residents of three different villages of Soraba Taluk which comes within the limits of respondent police station. Petitioners are working for public life and fighting for the cause of general public connected with various issues on 31.10.2017. The petitioners were indulged in darana regarding demolition of sheds and huts of poor residents who were residing on tank bund of a Gokkatte in Anavatti Village near Vittal temple. The Government of Karnataka has taken up the widening of the road which is a State Highway between Shivamogga.
5. The complainant made the allegation in the complaint that on 31.10.2017 at 12.30 p.m. Rajappa D.B.Thallur, the Second Division Assistant went along with others to the place where the persons who were allotted with the sites and which were going on darana and at that time when they were receiving the representations the accused persons who are named in the complaint all of a sudden assaulted Rajappa D.B.Thallur, the Second Division Assistant and they also kicked him. Further allegations in the complaint goes to show that one Muthesh S/o Mallappa assaulted the complainant with the chappal and abused with filthy language taking the name of the caste and thereby even committed offence under the provisions of SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The further averments goes to show that the petitioner threatened the complainant that he will get transfer him and also posed life threat. At that time, one Parashuramappa S/o Guthyappa and Zakhir S/o Shabbir Sab came to the place and pacified the quarrel. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
6. Looking to the contents of the complaint and other materials placed on record at this stage prima- facie goes to show that it was a gathering of the people who involved in the dharana and wherein the complainant along with others came to the said place, when it is a group of people involved in the dharana at this stage, it cannot be anticipated the specific allegation as against each of the individual persons who were involved in the dharana. Looking to the complaint averments, no doubt it is clear that the allegations made against the person involved is abusing him in filthy language taking the name of the caste. But only on that basis at this stage, it cannot be assumed by the Court that the complainant has established that the materials attracting the alleged offences even under the provisions of the SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act. Apart from that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint the community they belong to. Unless and until they specifically state that petitioners belong to any particular community which attracts SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, the question of committing alleged offence does not arise at all.
7. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail. Therefore, Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 cannot be a bar to entertain this petition for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 353, 355, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(r)(s) (m) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 registered in respondent police station in Crime No.273/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and have to furnish one 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 have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The petitioners have to 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 KLY/