IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8649/2018 BETWEEN :
V.P. Rakshith S/o V.R.Prasanna Aged about 25 years R/a No.98/1, Ramaswamy Layout Behind Police Station Halasahalli Road, Varthuru, Bengaluru-560 087.
(By Sri Vittal Sattigeri, Advocate for Sri Rahul S. Reddy, Advocate) AND :
State by Kolar Rural Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001.
(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) … Petitioner … Respondent 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.59/2018 of Kolar Rural Police Station, Kolar District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (s) (r) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant him anticipatory bail in Crime No.59/2018 of Kolar Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Though the notice has been served on the complainant through the police, she has remained absent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
4. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant was owning 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.21 of Chinnenahally Village which was belonged to her father- in-law Muniyappa. The said Muniyappa died in the year 2001. It is further alleged that when Muniyappa was alive, one Y.H.Dinesh Babu, i.e., accused No.1 said to have created some documents to show that the said land would stand in the name of some other person and got executed the sale deed on 24.3.2009 in his favour. Thereafter, on 20.7.2013, accused No.1 sold the land to V.P.Rakshit for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The complainant after having come to know the mutation entry effected in the revenue records, obtained the copies of the same and at that point of time, it is alleged one Begli Surya Prakash called the complainant and told her that the said land has been purchased by the present petitioner and he would see that the complainant would get Rs.20 lakhs from him and at that point of time, he offered a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as advance. It is stated that the complainant told her that her husband Srinivas would not agree for the same. However, she and her two daughters put their signatures on some document. It is further alleged that at that point of time, she was abused by taking the name of her caste. It is further alleged that about three months prior to 29.1.2018 the complainant met the petitioner with regard to the land transaction and at that time, the petitioner said to have taken the name of the caste of the complainant and abused her and on the basis of the same, complaint has been filed.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made in the complaint are not justifiable. The incident has taken place three months before lodging the complaint and there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The complaint has been registered after debate and discussions. He further submitted that the complainant has not been abused by taking the name of her caste. Complaint came to be registered only to take revenge against the accused persons. Already accused No.4 has been released on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that on perusal of the complaint, it clearly shows that the petitioner along with other accused persons has abused the complainant by taking the name of her caste in respect of the land transaction and as per Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Act’ for short), there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records.
8. The alleged incident said to have been taken place in respect of sale of land belonging to the complainant’s father-in-law Muniyappa. It is clearly stated in the complaint that the said land was purchased by the petitioner. The complainant was called and told by the accused persons that she would get Rs.20 lakhs and she was offered Rs.2,50,000/- as advance. There is an allegation that at that point of time also the complainant was abused by taking the name of her caste. However, no complaint was lodged. Thereafter, the complainant met the petitioner. It is alleged that at that point of time, he abused her by taking the name of her caste and insulted her. There is a delay of three months in filing the complaint and the said delay has not been properly explained. I am aware of the fact that Section 18 of the Act is a bar when granting anticipatory bail to the accused. It has been already interpreted in many decisions that only when there is a caste based attack, the provisions of Section 18 are applicable. Prima facie, if there is civil dispute and no case has been made out and there is a delay, then under such circumstances, this Court can exercise vested power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioner on bail. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that already accused No.4 under similar facts and circumstances has already been released on bail in Criminal Petition No.1394/2018, disposed of on 2.3.2018, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest in Crime No.59/2018 of Kolar Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the petitioner herein is ordered to be released, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency.
ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Agency within fifteen days from today.
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) He shall make available for investigation and interrogation as and when he is ordered to do so.
v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
vi) He shall mark attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-