IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 :BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7200/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDABASAVA, S/O SRI KAMBADURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PUJARAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572112.
(BY SRI VENKATESH R.BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BADAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MANJUNATHA P.S., S/O SRI SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT PUJARAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572112.
(BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH) …PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.71/2017 OF BADVANAHALLI P.S., TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 (1) (R) (S) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the respondent-Police in their Crime No.71/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Sc & ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (the brevity ‘the Act’) and Sections 324 and 504 of IPC.
3. The allegation as per the complaint is, on 11.08.2017 while the complainant was plouging his land, the petitioner due to some previous enmity, abused him in filthy and insulting language, and assaulted with a club on his hand. Immediately, the complainant contacted his father over phone and reported the incident. On the arrival of the father at the spot, the petitioner abused him also in filthy and insulting language and hit at his elbow with the stone.
4. There is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the complainant belongs to a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe community and the complaint lacks material particulars as to the specific verbal abuse used by the complainant in the public place. So also there is no averments in the complaint that the petitioner abused the complainant by taking his caste name.
5. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that a prima-facie case for the offence under ‘the Act’ is made out. Hence, Section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities Act) is not a bar for the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail.
6. In the light of the above, the petition is allowed.
The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks in Crime No.71/2017 registered by the respondent- police. Within that period, he shall surrender before the concerned Court and move for bail. In the event of his arrest within the above period by the respondent-Police, he shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety for the likesum.
Sd/- JUDGE VM