Karnataka High Court
M. O. Abraham vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30104
CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1245 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. M. O. ABRAHAM
S/O LATE THAMPI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2. ASHEEM ABRAHAM
S/O M O ABRAHAM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
BOTH ARE CHRISTIANS BY
CASTE RESIDING AT NO.49,
MANAMEL FARM
GADDIGE MAIN ROAD
BOGADI,
MYSURU-570026.
3. GOPAL RAO N
S/O LATE NAGENDRA RAO
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
LAKSHMI T RESIDING AT NO.4774
Location: NR MOHALLA 4TH CROSS
High Court of
Karnataka SHIVAJI RAO
MYSURU-570007.
4. MANJUNATH M C
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.108
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MAJJEGEPURA
K R SAGARA POST
MANDYA 571607.
...APPELLANTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30104
CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024
(BY SRI. V LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KRS POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
2. RAMANANDA B L
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH B L
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.8
2ND MAIN ROAD
KUKKARAHALLI
MYSURU-571507.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21.06.2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA IN CRL.MISC.NO.368/2024.
B. PASS AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.84/2024 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 427,506,504,149,447,323 OF
IPC R/W SEC.3(1)(r),3(1)(g),3(1)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA)
AMENDMENT ACT 2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30104
CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-defacto complainant and perused the material on record.
2. Rejection of petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge has been assailed in this appeal by the appellants / accused Nos.1 to 4.
3. Appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.84/2024 of K.R.Sagar Police Station, Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act') and under Sections 427, 506, 504, 447 and 323 r/w Section 149 IPC.
4. Complaint is lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that, he is a Managing Director of V.Pram Power Company Pvt. Ltd. and he is an Electrical Engineer. He obtained permission -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 from the Government to start a small power house in Cauvery Kharab land situated near Devaraya Dam of Edathittu village in Belagola Hobli. In this connection, he took permission from various Departments of the Government and obtained license from the Gram Panchayath. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being the father and son are the neighbouring land owners in Sy.Nos.53 and 54. Before starting the power house, accused Nos.1 and 2 filed a civil case before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Srirangapatna and also in the High Court, rejected by both the Courts. Permission was granted to the complainant to start a small power house. The property was measured through ADLR and 30 guntas of land was marked for starting a small power house. Complainant installed stone poles with barbed wire compound wall and on 09.03.2024, performed the inaugural function of the work inviting the local MLA, Departmental Directors, Chairman of MUDA and others. At that time, at the instigation of accused Nos.1 to 3, accused No.4, a member of Majjigepura Gram Panchayath along with his associates trespassed into the property, abused the complainant in filthy language referring to his caste, removed the stone fence and assaulted complainant's brother Prabhu on his face and also his -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 brother's son by name Kaushik on his face and head. Further, they threatened them with dire consequences saying that they will finish them if they start the power house in the said land. It is further stated in the complaint that one Sadananda and Amit intervened and pacified the quarrel and shifted both the injured to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, wherein they were treated as out patients.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the entire allegations are false and the complaint is lodged belatedly implicating the appellants in view of the civil dispute between the two parties. He contended that there is no nexus with the alleged crime and the appellants, whereas the complainant after an inordinate delay of more than two months has filed a frivolous complaint. He contended that even according to the complainant, accused Nos.1 to 3 were not at all present at the time of alleged incident and the allegation that accused No.4 assaulted complainant's brother and his brother's son is utterly false, since in the earliest version given before the Doctor his name was not mentioned as an accused, on the other hand, as per the history furnished, the assault was by an unknown person. He further contended that the alleged -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 incident according to the complainant is on account of starting a small power house and therefore, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence alleged to have committed under the SC/ST (PoA) Act has been made out. He, therefore, contended that the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating these aspects has mechanically passed an order rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail and sought to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by granting anticipatory bail to the appellants.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State has contended that a plain reading of the complaint averments clearly disclose a prima facie case against the appellants for the offences registered in the FIR. He contended that at the instigation of accused Nos.1 to 3, accused No.4 has come to the spot along with others and picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused him in filthy language referring to his caste and assaulted his brother and brother's son. He submits that the wound certificates of the two injured confirms the incident. He, therefore, contended that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that immediately after the incident, the complainant has approached the jurisdictional police. Since no case was registered, he was constrained to approach the Director of Civil Rights and Enforcement (DCRE), who after an enquiry has found substance in the complaint and accordingly on the report filed by the DCRE, the police have registered the above case. He, therefore, contended that the delay in lodging the complaint has been explained by the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further contended that prior to setting up of power house in the land of the complainant, accused No.1 had filed a case before the Civil Court and High Court and the same were rejected by both the Courts and therefore, to take vengeance accused Nos.1 to 3 instigated accused No.4 to commit the offence. He contended that in the complaint, it is specifically stated that at the instigation of accused Nos.1 to 3, accused No.4 along with others have come to the spot and abused the complainant referring to his caste and also assaulted him and caused injury. He, therefore, contended that there is a prima facie case against the appellants and sought to dismiss the appeal. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024
9. I have perused the complaint averments. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 09.03.2024 at about 12.30-12.45 p.m. A perusal of the complaint averments clearly goes to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 named in the FIR were not present at the spot when the incident took place. According to the complainant, at the instigation of the said accused, accused No.4 along with his associates trespassed into the land and removed the barbed wire fence and abused him in filthy language taking the name of his caste. It is further alleged that accused No.4 assaulted complainant's brother by name Prabhu and his nephew by name Kaushik and caused injuries to them.
10. Case is registered on 21.05.2024, which is after 2 months 12 days from the date of incident. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has made available a copy of the letter dated 16.05.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Police (in-charge), DCRE, Bengaluru to Superintendent of Police, Mandya District, Mandya. It appears that, based on a representation dated 29.03.2024 submitted by the complainant to the DCRE, the said letter was issued. Based on which, case -9- NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 came to be registered. The said representation was given after 20 days from the date of incident.
11. It is relevant to see that as per the complaint averments, accused No.4 is a member of Majjigepura Gram Panchayat. Hence, the name of the said accused and he being a Member of a Grama Panchayat was within the knowledge of the complainant. However, in the history furnished to the K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, it is mentioned that the assault is by one unknown person with hands. There was no reason for the complainant to give history before the doctor that he was assaulted by an unknown person. In the wound certificate, which was issued subsequently it is stated that the assault was by a known person. In the background of delay in lodging the complaint the same assumes importance and raises a doubt in the mind of the Court about the averments made in the complaint.
12. Insofar as the abusive words alleged to have been used by accused No.4, omnibus allegations are made that accused No.4 and his associates have abused the complainant. As per the wound certificates of the two injured made available
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 by the learned High Court Government Pleader, both of them have sustained simple injuries and they are treated as out patients.
13. The learned Sessions Judge, though noticed that the allegations against accused Nos.1 to 3 that they abetted accused No.4 to commit the offence, but no such Section was included in the FIR, rejected the prayer seeking anticipatory bail. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has also observed that the police called the appellants to the station and recorded their statements which indicate that they never went to the spot and committed any offence. However, considering the undertaken given by them that they will not trouble the complainant in any manner, came to a conclusion that they are unnecessarily interfering with the complainant's possession. The said reasons for dismissing the petition was not proper.
14. The appellants have undertaken to offer sufficient surety and co-operate with the Investigation of the case. No criminal antecedents against the appellants were brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, by imposing necessary conditions,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 they can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The Order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.Misc.No.368/2024 is set aside.
iii. Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.84/2024 of K.R.Sagar Police Station, Mandya, are ordered to be released in the event of their arrest, subject to following conditions:
i. They shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, with two sureties for the likesum.
ii. They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Court if there is any change in the address.
iii. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30104 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024 learned trial Judge, till the conclusion of investigation or until further orders.
iv. They shall participate in the investigation of the case, whenever called upon to do so.
v. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. vi. They shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.
Violation of any of the above conditions shall result in cancellation of the bail.
The observations made in this order is confined to the disposal of this appeal.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23