IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100385 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI TIRAKAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN 580105.
2. SHIVAPPA S/O. JUMMAPPA JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
TALUK AND DSITRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN 580105.
3. MADEVAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HANDI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN 580105.
4. NINGAPPA S/O. SHIVAJI JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
TALUK AND DSITRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN 580105.
5. MADIWALAPPA S/O. SHIVAJI JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
TALUK AND DSITRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN 580105.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.M.MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
GARAG POLICE STATION, GARAG,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 581105.
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT: DHARWAD BENCH,
PIN - 580011.
2. SHRI IRAPPA S/O. RUDARAPPA DODAMANI,
R/O. TIMMAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD,
PIN - 582115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14
A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL FILED BY THESE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOs.4 TO 8 BY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
CRI.MISC.NO.390/2022 DATED 14.07.2022 PASSED BY II ND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL.JUDGE, AT
DHARWAD, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
CRI.MISC.NO.390/2022 AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NOs.4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 MAY BE ENLARGED ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN GARAG P.S. CRIME NO.77/2022 UNDER SECTIONS
302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)
(va) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED II ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE AT DHARWAD.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused Nos.4 to 8
challenging the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Dharwad in Criminal Misc. No.390/2022 filed under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Garag Police Station in Crime No.77/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and under Section 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act', for brevity) which came to be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -4- CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 No.1-State and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Irappa S/o Rudrappa Doddamani resident of Timmapur village of Dharwad taluk has filed a complaint stating that his sister Kasturevva got married to one Ramappa Kelagade (deceased) of Hangarki village and they have two female children. It is further stated that the said Kasturevva had illicit relationship with one Hanumanthappa Jummanavar-accused No.1 since 4 years and due to the same, her husband was addicted to alcohol and he used to harass his wife and children, after consuming alcohol. The Hanumanthappa- accused No.1 had given some money to deceased Ramappa as advance and kept him for work into his Grain Machine. That on 16.05.2022, the Ramappa's brother's wife has called to his mobile and told that the Ramappa was suffering from stomach ache. Therefore, the -5- CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 complainant called the said person and when enquired, she was told that Ramappa died and his funeral will be at 11:00 p.m, in Hangaraki village. Thereafter, the complainant and elders of the village went to Hangaraki village to attend the funeral, at that time, the 2 n d daughter of his sister namely Sonu aged about 13 years came over to complainant and told that his father was murdered. Then the complainant has asked his sister regarding the cause of death of Ramappa, but she was not disclosed anything and he was not allowed to go near Ramappa's dead body and hurriedly dead body was taken to burial ground. When the dead body was on funeral pyre then also not allowed the complainant to see the dead body properly and poured kerosene and set fire. After seeing all this when complainant asked his sister, she told that when Ramappa was not been to work, accused No.1-Hanumanthappa came over to their house and took the Ramappa to work by scolding and bearing him. At about 5:00 p.m, accused -6- CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 No.1-Hanumanthappa came and told that her husband Ramappa was suffering from stomach ache and need to take him to hospital and asked her to come. Therefore, she and her husband's brother Shettappa and Kareppa together went in accused No.1-Hanumantappa's vehicle. When they reach near Kelageri, they found her husband was unconscious and further she said that her husband died near Kelageri bridge while going to the hospital. She also requested the complainant to leave this mater and stated that if the incident is disclosed the villagers will not allow her to lead her life. After inquiry in the village, the complainant suspected the death of Ramappa and therefore, he filed a complaint and the said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.77/2022 for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 201 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 apprehending their arrest have filed Criminal Misc. No.390/2022 -7- CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned II Additional District & Sessions & Spl. Judge, Dharwad vide order dated 14.07.2022. Therefore, the appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 have challenged the said impugned order in the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that, the alleged incident occurred on 16.05.2022 and the complainant came to be filed on 18.05.2022. It is his further submission that in the remand application dated 05.06.2022 in respect of accused No.1 there are no allegations of involvement of these appellants in the alleged crime. It is his further submission that in the remand application dated 14.06.2022 in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3, the appellants have been arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 8 but there are no averments of involvement by these appellants in the alleged crime. The Trial Court without considering all these aspects, has passed the -8- CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 279, 304(A), 323, 355, 448, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and under Sections 3 read with Section 181, 5 read with Section 180 and 134 read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The accusation levelled against these appellants are that, they were their in the tractor and also they have participated in the cremation of the deceased Ramappa. It is his further submission that accused No.1 has been granted bail by the Sessions Court and accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.100322/2022. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State
would contend that, as one of the offences alleged -9- CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 against the appellants is under the SC/ST Act the Trial Court considering bar under Section 18(A) of the SC/ST Act has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants and therefore, the impugned order does not requires any interference by this Court. It is his further submission that the charge sheet has been filed and it discloses the involvement of these appellants and their presence in the tractor and also they participating in the cremation of the dead body of the deceased Ramappa. It is his further submission that if the appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the Special Court considering the involvement of these appellants in commission of the offences under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and invoking bar contained under Section
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 18(A) of the SC/ST Act has rightly rejected the bail petition of the appellants which does not require any interference by this Court. The offence alleged against the appellants are heinous offences. It is his further submission that appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 were there in the tractor driven by accused No.9 intentionally, rashly and made deceased to fall down who sustained injuries and who died on the way to hospital and all the accused burnt the dead body without intimating the death and accident to the Police. If the appellants are granted bail, they will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and with this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, this Court has perused the impunged order and charge sheet papers.
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022
8. The case came to be registered in Crime No.77/2022 against the accused No.1 Hanumantappa on the complaint filed by Irappa S/o.Rudarappa Dodamani regarding death of the deceased Ramappa. The FIR came to be registered against the accused No.1 Hanumantappa. There are no allegations of involvement of accused Nos.4 to 8 who are appellants herein in the complaint filed by the said Irappa Dodamani. Even in the remand application of Accused No.1 there are no allegations of involvement of these appellants in the commission of the crime. In the remand application of accused Nos.2 and 3, these appellants have been arrayed as appellant Nos.4 to 8 but in respect of that there are no mentioning of any participation of these appellants in the commission of the crime. It is mentioned in the further statement of the complainant, that his brother deceased Ramappa fell from the tractor and died, and without informing the same to the Police accused Nos.2 and 3 have conspired with
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 accused No.1 and burnt the dead body of the deceased Ramappa. At the time of passing the impugned order, there were no allegations of involvement of these appellants in causing accident or death of the deceased Ramappa. Merely because the case is registered under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, the learned Special Judge invoked the bar under Section 18(A) of the SC/ST Act and has passed the impunged order rejecting the petition of all the appellants seeking anticipatory bail. Even on perusal of the charge sheet papers, there are no role of these appellants in causing the accident and injuries to the deceased Ramappa. The said tractor was driven by accused No.9, when the deceased fell from the tractor and sustained injuries and died when he was being shifted in the bike of CW16. These appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 stated to have participated in cremation of the deceased Ramappa, where his dead body was burnt. Therefore, at this state, it cannot be said that the
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 Provisions of SC/ST Act are attracted against these appellants, therefore, the bar contained under Section 18(A) is not attracted and without considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. Other offences alleged against the appellants are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellants. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting anticipatory bail to these appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 subject
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. No.390/2022 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Dharwad is set-aside. Consequently, the petition filed by appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., stands allowed and the appellants/accused Nos.4 and 8 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.77/2022 of Garag Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.
ii. The appellants shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022 iii. The appellants shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.
iv. The appellants shall attend the jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE RH