IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3529/2017 Between:
Sri. Keshavamurthy S/o late Srinivasa Char Aged about 46 years R/of Kodandaramaswamy Temple Sarjapura, Anekal Taluk Bengaluru District – 560 061.
(By Mr. Abhinav R, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Sarjapura Police Bengaluru-560061.
(By Mr. S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP) *** ...Petitioner ... Respondent This Crl.P. 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.15/2017 of Sarjapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(za), 3(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This Crl.P. coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The Respondent Police registered a FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.15/2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(za) and 3(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’).
2. The allegation is, during the evening hours on 24-01-2017, the complainant and two of her friends went to the Temple, where the petitioner performs as Archak. The petitioner did not personally offer Mangalarati plate to the complainant and her friends, instead, placed the same on the table, since these ladies belong to Scheduled Caste community. But they insisted for personal service, and while Mangalarati plate was extended, accidentally, the complainant touched the Mangalarati plate and also the hand of the petitioner. Flared up by the same, the petitioner took objection for touching him, assaulted and abused the ladies by referring to their scheduled caste community and dragged the complainant by holding her saree and pushed her out of the Temple by uttering that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe people shall stay outside the temple. There are eye witnesses to the incident.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhinav R. submits that a plain reading of the complaint by itself would make out that it is a concocted and false complaint. There was no reason for the petitioner to take objection against the complainant for touching him and again pushing her out of the Temple. It is not the complaint allegation that the petitioner knew the caste of the complainant and her friends and had previous acquaintance with them. He has filed writ petitions against the intruders who are making efforts to take over the administration of the Temple, which belongs to Muzrai Department. Out of the four witnesses cited in the complaint, one Shri. Shridhar, who is the brother of one S. Yellappa Reddy, S/o. late Subba Reddy/ Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition Nos.3719/2016 and 2259/2016. The entire incident is stage-managed only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner, since frustrated by his efforts to save the Temple, which is a Muzrai Institution.
4. Learned HCGP while opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner has used criminal force against the ladies who had gone to the Temple to offer devotion to the deity and there are eye witnesses to the incident. In view of Section 18 of ‘the Act’, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Perused the complaint allegations.
6. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no indication from record that the complainant and the petitioner had previous acquaintances, he knew her background/caste. It is not palatable that the petitioner having taken exception against the ladies for touching him, again manhandles them and pushes them out of the Temple. The possibility of a concocted and false complaint cannot be ruled out, when viewed with the back drop of the litigation in respect of the temple property and it cannot be said that as of now, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 795], observed that, “a duty is cast on the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out.…”, which element is missing in the present complaint.
7. In the circumstances, there is no impediment to grant anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.15/2017, registered by the Sarjapura Police, subject to the following conditions:
1] In the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police, in the above case, he shall be enlarged on bail on he executing a self bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting Police Officer;
2] He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon during the further investigation.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*