Mallengada P Shruthi vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1940 Kant

                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.542 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.     MALLENGADA. P .SHRUTHI
       W/O M.G.PONNAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
       R/O NITTOOR VILLAGE AND POST
       BALELE HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK
       KODAGU - 571 218.

2.     MALLENGADA.G.VINESH
       S/O M. C. GANAPATHY
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
       R/O NITTOOR VILLAGE AND POST
       BALELE HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK
       KODAGU - 571 218.
                                        ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI H. B. UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY PONNAMPET
       POLICE STATION, VIRAJPET TALUK
       KODAGU - 571 218.

2.     DINESHA H R
       AGED 33 YEARS
       R/O POLIBETTA VILLAGE
                            2




     AND POST SIDDAPURA
     VIRAJPET TALUK,
     KODAGU - 571 218.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP
FOR R-1, R2 - SERVED)


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.105/2020 OF PONNAMPET P.S., KODAGU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1) (r), 3(1) (S) AND SEC.3(2) (V-A) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                      JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is filed being aggrieved by the

rejection of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime

No 105/2020 of ponnampet police station by the

learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-

Madikeri Sitting at Virajpet in Crl.Misc.No.5300/2020

by its order dated 29.01.2021.

2. I have heard Sri H.B.Uday Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri K.Nageshwarappa,

learned HCGA for the respondent-State.

3. The sum and substance of the case in Crime

No.105/2020, in which one Dinesh H.R., is the

complainant is that on 03.12.2020, the complainant

and several others were taken to Nittor Village to work

in the land belonging to one Devaiah for picking coffee

seeds in his land and at about 11.50 am., when they

were working in the coffee estate, the appellants herein

and one Ponnapa who are also the residents of Nittor

Village came and questioned them as to why they are

picking coffee seeds in their estate and asked the

complainant and others to go away from there. When

the complainant and others told that they are working

as per the instruction of one puliyanda Bopanna, the

accused assaulted the complainant and others all of a

sudden and threatened to shoot on them and further

abused them in vulgar language saying "Holeya Soole

Makkala" etc. Based on the said complaint, Crime

No.105/2020 was registered in Ponnampet Police

Station for the offences punishable under Section 323,

504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)®,

3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

4. The anticipatory bail petition filed before the

court below in Crl.Misc.No.5300/2020 by three accused

persons, came to be rejected by its order dated

29.01.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

before me that the complaint in Crime No.105/2020

was filed maliciously and as a counter blast to the said

complaint, appellant No.1 herein had filed against the

complaint herein Crime No.104/2020 in Ponnampet

Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 379, 506 and 114 r/w Section 34 of

IPC.

6. In the said case, the complainant in Crime

No.105/2020 is also one of the accused persons. He

submits that the complainant has acted at the behest of

one Devaiah and Puliyanda Bopanna whose name is

mentioned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

No.104/2020 in order to take revenge against the

appellants herein on account of certain property

disputes which is pending before the Civil Court. He

further submits that there is absolutely no allegation in

the complaint that the appellants were aware of caste

status of the complainant - Dinesh H.R., and it is

merely stated that the appellants had abused by using

vulgar language and also with reference to his caste.

7. Learned HCGA, on the other hand, submits

that the complaint discloses that the appellants have

committed very grave offence of abusing that he belongs

to schedule caste community and therefore, in view of

Section 18 of the Schedule caste and Schedule Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellants are not

entitled for granting anticipatory bail.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made on either side and I have perused the

complaint in Crime No.104/2020 and the present

complaint in Crime No.105/2020. In Crime

No.104/2020 of Ponnampet Police Station, the appellant

No.1 herein was the complainant and it was registered

prior to the complaint filed by the complainant- Sri

Dinesh H.R., in Crime No.105/2020.

9. In the compliant of appellant No.1 herein

based on which a case is registered in Crime

No.104/2020, there is allegation that on 03.12.2020 at

about 11.50 am., when appellant No.1 having heard the

sound of cutting of trees in her land, she went to the

spot and found the complainant H.R.Dinesh and several

others picking coffee seeds and cutting trees in her land

and when she objected to the same, the complainant

herein and several other accused persons had assaulted

her and outraged her modesty. In the present case

namely in Crime No.105/202, the allegation is that on

the same day at and at the same time, the appellants

and two others had abused the complainant-H.R.Dinesh

with reference to his caste etc in an omnibus manner

without specifically mentioning who had uttered the

caste related abusive words

10. Taking into consideration the above fact and

also the fact that there is a complaint and counter

complaint, I am of the view that the appellants herein

can be granted anticipatory bail, subject to certain

conditions. Hence, I pass the following

ORDER

(i) Criminal appeal is allowed.

(ii) The appellants are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.105/2020 of Ponnampet

Police Station on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with a solvent surety for the likesum;

(iii) They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) They shall co-operate to the investigation as and when called for; and

(v) Appellant No.2 shall appear before the SHO of Ponnampet Police Station on Sunday of every month between 10.00 am to 5.00 pm till the investigation in the case is over.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PB