IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7534 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI LAKKANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O.SRI.BUDDAPPA 2. SMT.RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O.SRI LAKKANNA 3. SRI.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O.SRI MAHALINGANNA ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUDLAPURA VILLAGE BAAGUR HOBLI CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 571 301.
(BY SRI NAIK.N.R., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NUGGENAHALLI POLICE STATION CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK REPTD. BY ITS SPP ... PETITIONERS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 01.
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, H.C.G.P.) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.117/2017 OF NUGGEHALLI P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 504, 436, R/W.341 OF IPC AND SEC.4, 3(1) (x) OF SC / ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 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, 504, 436 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) registered in respondent police station Crime No.117/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 produced in the case.
4. Looking to the materials one - Kumara is the complainant lodged the complaint alleging that on 01.07.2017, the petitioners herein set fire to the residential hut of the complainant and also they have assaulted him and his family members, abused them in filthy language by taking the name of the caste. Therefore, they have committed the offence even under the provision of the said Act.
5. But it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the same day the petitioners lodged the complaint against the complainant and family members for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 427, 323, 504, 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC which is also registered in Crime No.118/2017. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that complainant and his family members set fire to the crops and fruit bearing trees of the petitioners herein. The same fire caught even to the hut of the complainant. Therefore, the petitioners have not at all committed the alleged offences.
6. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned HCGP that materials produced prima-facie makes out a case as against the petitioners herein. He also submitted that the petition is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, there is bar to entertain the petition and to grant the anticipatory bail. Hence, he opposes the bail petition.
7. Perused the materials. So far as the alleged offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 18 of the Act, no doubt is a bar, but it is not absolute as such, the duty is cast on the Court, wherein the Court has to examine the materials produced and to ascertain whether the materials produced makes out a case for the offences under the provisions of the said Act.
8. Now looking to the materials in the case on hand, sofar as the abuse in filthy language taking the name of the caste, it is not in public place and it is in the residential hut of the complainant, even according to him. Apart from that, the petitioners belongs to which caste is also not specifically mentioned in the complaint.
9. I have also perused the documents produced by the petitioners i.e., the complaint and copy of the FIR which is registered in Crime No.118/2017 and one Lakkappa i.e., petitioner No.1 herein is the complainant in the said case and the accused persons are Kumara and Shashi Kumar. These two persons are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the counter case. Looking to the allegations made in the counter case at this stage, it cannot be assumed that the complainant has made out a case under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be a bar to entertain the petition.
10. In view of the counter complaint and the serious allegations made against the complainant and others and as the petitioners contended that they are innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offences, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners herein.
11. 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 506, 504, 436 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 4, 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 registered in respondent police station Crime No.117/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
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.
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.
VMB Sd/- JUDGE