IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11H DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2305/2018 BETWEEN:
State by Bannerghatta Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) AND:
1. T. Sreenivasareddy S/o Thimmareddy Aged about 59 years 2. T. Ramachandra Reddy S/o Thimmappa Reddy Aged about 56 years 3. T. Prakash Reddy S/o Thimmappa Reddy Aged about 59 years 4. T. Venugopal Reddy S/o Thimmappa Reddy Aged about 46 years ...Petitioner (All are R/at No.3/1-A, Near Sreerama Temple Hulimavu, Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru-560 076.
(By Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, Advocate) ... Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C praying to cancel the order dated 24.10.2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1564/2017 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, granting anticipatory bail to the accused-respondents in Crime No.142/2017 of Bannerghatta Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 341 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner-State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the II Additional District and Session Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.1564/2017 dated 24.10.2017.
2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State and learned counsel for respondents.
3. Gist of the complaint is that a civil case was pending and the complainant is belonging to Bovi community. The accused persons on 06.07.2017 at about 4.00 p.m., wrongfully restrained the father of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences stating that if the said case is not withdrawn by the complainant, they will kill his son by running lorry over him and also they abused and insulted them by taking the name of their caste. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader for petitioner-State that though there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail under Section 18A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(POA) Act, 1989 the trail Court ignoring the said fact has granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the accused persons have committed an atrocities against the complainant and by considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of VILAS PANDURANGA PAWAR v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Crl.) 1062, the Court below has granted the anticipatory bail. Further it is submitted that the bail granted is illegal and is not sustainable under law. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents by substantiating the order of trial Court, has submitted that there is no prima-facie material and the trail Court after considering the delay and other aspects, has rightly come to the conclusion and has granted anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the order of trial Court. The trial Court after considering the fact that the alleged incident has taken place on 06.07.2017 and the complaint was registered on 06.08.2017, there is delay of one month in filing the complaint. There is no explanation for the delayed filing of the complaint. Even the trial Court after considering the fact opined that there is no prima-facie case as against the accused persons and the said incident has taken place on the road and whether the public has viewed the alleged incident or not? is not forthcoming. On these grounds, the trial Court has granted the bail.
7. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. Under such circumstances, the Court can exercise power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and can grant anticipatory bail. On close reading of the said order, the trial Court after considering all the above said facts and circumstance, has rightly come to the conclusion. There is no good ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Even when the discretion has been exercised and the anticipatory bail has been granted and if there is no illegality or irregularity, under such circumstance, this Court must be very slow in interfering with such orders. There are no good grounds. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS