IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7123 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI M. MAHADESHA MURTHY S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.268/1A 3RD MAIN ROAD, PIPE LINE WEST KASTURBA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 026.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ULSOOR GATE P.S.
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN SPL.C.C.NO.122/2016 AND CRIME NO.271/2008 OF ULSOORGATE P.S., BENGALURU CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 3(1)(ix) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989 AND UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC.
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 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 alleged offences punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, registered in respondent – Police Station Crime No.271/2008. But subsequently even the offence under Section 420 of IPC is also inserted in the case.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the petitioner belongs to Nayaka community which comes under the Scheduled Tribes category. Accordingly, he has obtained the caste certificate from the concerned jurisdictional Tahsildar. Learned counsel further made the submission that because of complaint made by somebody, there was a enquiry with regard to the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner – accused and the District Caste Verification Committee after considering the materials passed the order dated 11.03.2002, wherein the caste of the petitioner has been cancelled with immediate effect. Learned counsel in this connection refers to the Mahazar and made the submission that even looking to the contents of the mahazar also, it prima-facie goes to show that the petitioner belongs to Nayaka community and the wife whom he has married is also belonging to Nayaka community. Accordingly, the names of the children of the petitioner in the School is also mentioned as Nayaka community. So far as the order passed by the Caste Verification Committee is concerned, learned counsel made submission that it is subject to challenge by the petitioner herein. Hence, the learned counsel submitted to allow the petition and grant the anticipatory bail as prayed for in the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP made submission that in the erstwhile Mysuru State, there were two caste i.e., ‘Beda Nayaka’ and other one is ‘Parivara Nayaka’. It is also his submission that caste ‘Beda Nayaka’ comes under the Scheduled Tribes category and caste ‘Parivara Nayaka’ is not the Nayaka community, it comes under the Gangamatha community. Hence, he made the submission taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the competent authority i.e., the Caste Verification Authority had already enquired into the matter and passed the order cancelling the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner by giving false information before the Tahsildar. Hence, he made the submission that petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the materials produced along with the petition.
6. Looking to the materials placed on record, at this stage, the competent authority under the Rules of 1993, being the District Caste Verification Committee, which authority has already enquired into the matter and passed the order for cancellation of the caste certificate with immediate effect. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. Looking to the materials placed on record, at this stage, the prosecution placed the prima-facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence. Matter requires custodial interrogation of the present petitioner. It is not a case for anticipatory bail. Apart from that, there is also the provision under Section 18 of the said Act that the petitioner cannot seek anticipatory bail in view of these materials placed on record. Accordingly petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE ca