IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1793/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Vishwas.E, S/o.Yathiraj.M @ Ethiraj, Aged about 39 years, R/at "DEEPIKA" 4th Cross, Basaveshwara Nagara, Shivamogga-577 202.
2. Sri.Mohan.M.M, S/o.Mahalingappa.T, Aged about 35 years, R/at "SHIVAPARVATHI NILAYA"
4th Cross, Thilak Nagara, Shivamogga-577 202.
3. Sri. Alase Raju @ Rajashekara.A, S/o.Narayala Alase.A, Aged about 56 years, R/at Near Kote Anjaneya Temple, Dr.SPM Road, Shivamogga-577 202. ... Petitioners (By Sri.Venkatesh T.S, Adv.,) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jayanagara Police Station, Kote Circle, Shivamogga, Rep. by SPP., High Court of Karnataka, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G, HCGP; Notice served on complainant) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.17/2019 (Cr.No.46/2019) of Jayanagara P.S., Shivamogga for the offence p/u/ss 506, 186, 504, 355, 353, 448, 143 and 147 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(m) of the 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 has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.17/2019 of Jayanagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 186, 504, 355, 353, 448, 143, 147 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(m) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Though the notice is served to the complainant, he remained absent.
3. Gist of the complaint is that on 16.02.2019, when the complainant was discharging his duties as Deputy Commissioner of transport, at about 3.30 p.m., the petitioner/accused No.1 along with others, entered into the complainant’s office and tried to assault him with Sandals. It is further alleged that the First Division Assistant, who was working in the said office, tried to pacify the quarrel. At that time, the accused persons abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste and also obstructed him from discharging his duties. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the complainant took the charge as a Deputy Commissioner of Transport on 06.02.2019 and worked for two days. While he was working, has changed the timings of crediting the amount to the cash counter up to 2.30 p.m. earlier, the cash counter used to be open till 7.00 p.m.. The accused persons when they went to meet the complainant requesting him to continue the earlier timings for crediting the amount to the cash counter, the complainant started abusing the accused persons in filthy language and even he uttered the words that he will also hit with boots. The accused persons tried to convince him but he was not convinced and he tried to assault the accused persons. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, one of the staff came and pacified the said galata. The accused persons have not uttered any words using the name of the caste. Further, it is submitted that if the entire complaint is looked into, the word used is not going to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The only word which has been used by the petitioner is that on the basis of the caste, the complainant has secured the job even though he does not have any qualification. Mere using of that word will not amount to an offence under the said act. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Further it is submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 have entered the chambers of the complainant and have abused the complainant with filthy language by taking the name of the caste. The same has been recorded in C.C. TV footages. She further submitted that the accused persons took up the quarrel and committed the said offences as contended in the complaint. There are no good grounds made out by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it indicate that though the alleged incident has taken place as contended in the complaint on 16.02.2019 at about 3.30 p.m., but on close reading of the contents of the complaint, it is alleged that the accused persons by taking the name of caste have stated that the complainant is not having any other qualification except the caste. The uttering of the said words, will not attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and it will not amounts to take the name of the caste and abuse the complainant. In that light, the provisions of Section 18A of the Act will not attract. In order to attract Section 18A of the Act, first the ingredients of said Act should apply then bar will apply. It is well settled principle of law in the case of Dr. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018)6 SCC 454 therein, it has been observed that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima-facie malafide. Keeping in view the said proposition of law, if the complaint is looked in to, there is no prima-facie case made out against accused persons as discussed by me above. Under the said facts and circumstance, this Court can exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail. Even the alleged offences are not punishable with death with imprisonment for life. The other allegations are the matter, which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. It is submitted by the learned HCGP that the C.C. TV footages is also recovered during the course of investigation that will also help the prosecution, to prove its case in detail.
8. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstance, I feel that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 have made out a case to release them on anticipatory bail.
9. In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.17/2019 of Jayanagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 186, 504, 355, 353, 448, 143, 147 read with Section 149s of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(m) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. They should surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission 5. They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station, till the charge sheet is filed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS