IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1678/2019 BETWEEN:
Ramesh M.S., S/o Murthappa, @ Muthaiah, Police Constable No.11283 Upparpet Police Station, R/o No.31/1, First Main, 5th Cross, Shivapura, Peenya Post, Bengaluru – 560 058.
(By Sri. B. Siddeswara, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, by Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP; Notice served on complainant) …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.62/2019 of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(4)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
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 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.62/2019 of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(4)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act for short).
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 complaint is that the complainant is working in the Rajagopalanagar police station as Head Constable and petitioner/accused was also working there. He made a phone call from his mobile phone to the mobile of Revanasidda Biradar and said to have abused the complainant in filthy language and also abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste and thereby the complainant has been hurt and same was informed to the Inspector and the said conversation was also recorded in the CD and submitted. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident has taken place as per the contents of the complaint on 27.1.2018 and the complaint was registered on 18.1.2019, there is one year delay in filing the complaint. He further submitted that nowhere in the complaint it has been alleged that the petitioner/accused has taken the name of the caste and abused. Even there is no direct abuse made by the petitioner/accused to the complainant. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused being the Head Constable and discharged the duties as a Police Constable, he has abused by taking the name of the caste and also by answering the complainant by abusive words. He further submitted that he is threatening the complainant and he is highly influential person. If he is released on bail, he may repeat the said act and it is very difficult for the complainant to work in the said police station. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
Though notice is served to the complainant, he has remained absent.
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. On close reading of the contents of the complaint the complainant has stated that the petitioner/accused by using the name of the caste has abused with filthy language, what are the words which have been used by taking the name of the caste is also not forthcoming from the entire complaint and even the alleged incident has taken place on 27.1.2018 at about 12.15 to 2.15 p.m., but the complaint was registered only on 18.1.2019. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. No cogent and acceptable reasons have stated to explain the delay. I am conscious of the fact that under the provisions of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act, to release the petitioner/accused on bail, there is a bar, but it is well settled principles of law in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2018)6 SCC 454, it has been observed that no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. Then under such circumstances this Court can entertain the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint though there is no specific allegations made to show that the petitioner/accused by taking the name of the caste abused the complainant, the allegation is that he used to call to the mobile of one Revanasidda Biradar and used to abuse directly, he has not called the complainant and abused.
9. The provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act if it is not applicable, then under such circumstances the bar which is there under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act is also not applicable and as such this Court can also entertain the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The alleged offences are not serious and they are also triable by the Court of the Magistrate. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel if by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
10. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No.62/2019 of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(4)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner 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 Officer.
ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
*AP/-
Sd/- JUDGE