IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.7581 of 2017 Between:
1. Smt.Sunanda, W/o Late Boregowda, Age 55 years, R/o 7th cross, Brindavannagar, Mathikere, Bengaluru – 560 054.
2. Sri.Mohan, S/o Lte Boregowda, Age 28 years, R/o 7th cross, Brindavannagar, Mathikere, Bengaluru – 560 054.
3. Punitha Kumar, S/o Shivkumar Age 28 years, R/o No.726/2 Old Panchiyat Rioad, Yeshwantpur, Bengaluru – 560 022 ... Petitioners (By Sri.P.Chandrashekar, Advocate) And The State of Karnataka Through Yashwanthapura Police Station.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP) ... Respondent This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.294/2017 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 506, 504, 323 and 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This is a petition filed by petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to direct the respondent police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act registered by the respondent police in Crime No.294/2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that though there is counter complaint filed by the petitioner which is first in point of time against complainant and others that was not taken into consideration by the court below. It is also his submission that petition came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge only on the ground that Section 18 of the ACT is a bar to entertain the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel submits that because the petitioners filed a complaint first in point of time against the complainant and others, as a counter blast the complaint has been filed against the petitioners. Hence, he submits that petition be allowed.
3. Per contra, learned HCGP referring to Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) (‘Act’ for short) submitted that there is a bar to entertain the petition. It is also his submission that the contents of the complaint go to show that offences are also committed under the provision of SC/ST(POA) Act. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR and other materials produced in the case. As submitted, the petitioner herein accused No.1 Smt.Sunanda is the complainant as against the complainant and others. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against one Prema, Sharada and Gopal B K in Crime NO.294/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 392, 323 and 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, looking to these aspects of the matter, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners herein is justified in making submission that as a counter blast, complaint is filed against the present petitioners.
5. So far as Section 18 of the Act is concerned, there is no absolute bar as such to entertain the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. But what the law says is, if the materials go to show that the evidence under the provision of the SC/ST (POA) Act appears to have been committed by the petitioners, then in that case, the petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CR.P.C is not maintainable. However, looking to the materials in this particular case, the complaint averments when perused, will not make out a prima-facie case so far as the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act. Vague and bald allegations are made by the complainant. Therefore, only on the basis of the said allegations, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that they constitute the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act.
6. I have perused the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners filed along with memo on 13.12.2017. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act will not be a bar to entertain the petition. Even with regard to the offences under IPC are concerned, they are all triable by the Magistrate Court, except the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act. There is a compliant first in point of time by the petitioner herein as against the complainant and others of this case. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest for the above offences registered by respondent police station in Crime No.294/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with further investigation.
iv. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Since the main petition itself is disposed of, the question of consideration of IA.No.2/2017 does not arise. Accordingly, IA.No.2/2017 is also disposed of.
dn/-
Sd/- Judge