Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Alan Santosh Babu vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|16 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2187 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI ALAN SANTOSH BABU, S/O PHILIPS, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION – SENIOR TECHNICAL ASST. AT LRDE, DRDO COMPLEX, BANGALORE, R/AT NO.111, VINAYAKA NAGAR, HAGADURU MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GAYATHRI R., FOR SRI. V. VENKATARAMAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R. PURAM POLICE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-560 001 2. DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT CELL, CRE CELL, BANGALORE CENTRAL, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) ******* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO. 21/2019 REGISTERED BY K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 198, 420 AND 196 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(q) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.21/2019 on the file of the respondent-police for the offence under Sections 198, 420, 196 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(q) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014.
3. The main allegations are that the petitioner belonged to the Christian Community working as DRDO employee in Ministry of Defense by obtaining the Caste- Certificate on 30.03.2007 from the Thasildar Bangalore East, stating that he belonged to Adi Dravida Community. After examination of the entire materials on record the Tahsildar Bangalore East has cancelled the said Certificate. Therefore, a case has been registered and a direction was issued by the Caste Verification Committee to the respondent-police.
4. Looking to the above said allegations mentioned in the FIR, there is no mention that who is the actual person annoyed due to the order passed by the Tahsildar in granting Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner and whether he has taken employment which is actually reserved for any SC/ST Community and thereby it annoyed the other person belongs to the SC/ST Community who was entitled for the said employment. All these things have to be clearly narrated in order to attract the provisions under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore the attraction of the provision on the basis of the above said facts is doubtful. However, the fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt during the course of full dressed trial. Further, the other offences under Sections 196, 198 and 420 of IPC are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.21/2019 of K.R. Puram Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Alan Santosh Babu vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
16 October, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra