IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1246/2019 BETWEEN:
Srinivas, s/o late Dasappa Aged 50 years, r/o Chikkalluru Ramohalli Post, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Bengaluru – 560 060. .. Petitioner (By Sri P Chandrashekar for Sri Ravi B Naik Associates, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Through Tavarekere Police Station Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Sri Ramaiah M, s/o Motaiah @ Chikka Hobalaiah, Aged 63 years r/o No.5/2, D Road, 2nd Cross Gopalapura, Magadi Road Bengaluru-560023. … Respondents (By Sri M Divakar Maddur, HCGP, for R1, Sri Byregowda N, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.7/2019 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
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 petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.7/2019 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)( r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 6.1.2019, when the complainant was proceeding to his brother’s house at Chikkelluru village, at that time, the petitioner /accused, all of a sudden, came from opposite direction and in respect of the dispute regarding landed property, he abused by using filthy language, slapped him and also threatened to do away his life and he also abused by taking the name of his caste. Immediately, he was taken to hospital and filed the complaint.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inconsistency in the complaint and the medical record. In the complaint, he stated that while going to his brother’s house, the alleged incident took place, but in the medical record, the complainant has disclosed that the alleged incident took place in the said village. He further submitted that the civil disputes are pending between the parties. The complainant has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner/accused. Subsequently, in order to deprive the same, he has executed another agreement of sale in favour of another person and a false case has been registered. He further submitted that bald allegations have been made in the said complaint. He further submitted that no specific allegation has been made by taking the name of the caste. He further submitted that there is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner/accused has abused by taking the name of caste and the material also discloses that if it is a false case, in such circumstances, the Court can exercise its judicial power and release the petitioner/accused on bail. In order to substantiate the same, learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Dr.SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN –vs- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454. He also relied upon a decision in the case of P SURENDRA –vs- STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN SLP (Crl.) No.1832/2019. He further submits that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. If bail is granted, he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail.
5. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 that the petitioner/accused assaulted and caused grievous injuries and he has also taken the name of caste and abused the complainant. He further submitted that there is no bar under Section 18A of SC & ST Act to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. It is the submission that the petitioner/accused has committed serious offence and as such the bail petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which have been produced in this behalf.
7. Perused the records. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other materials on record, it discloses that because of civil dispute between the parties, the petitioner/accused assaulted the complainant and thereafter abused by taking the name of caste. But on close reading of the contents of the complaint, there is no specific averments in the complaint by taking the name of caste of the complainant, so as to implicate the petitioner in the crime. Be that as it may, it is a specific case of the petitioner/accused that there is civil dispute pending. After entering into the agreement of sale with the petitioner/accused, the said property has been sold to the third party. In that background, a false complaint has been registered. Even the medical records and the complaint are taken into consideration, there is inconsistency in the said documents. In that like, it appears that there is no prima facie material made out so as to reject the bail application under Section 18A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The other offences leveled against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life.
8. In the case of Dr.SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN quoted supra, it has been observed that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that by imposing some stringent conditions, petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail to meet the ends of justice.
In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 7/2019 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 subject to the following conditions:
1. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Agency is directed to enlarge him on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
4. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station till trial is concluded.
5. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.