Sri. Sanjay Alias Sanjaykumar ... vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3130 Kant

                          -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100174 OF 2021
                          C/W
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100173 OF 2021

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100174 OF 2021
BETWEEN
SRI. SANJAY ALIAS SANJAYKUMAR
S/O. AMARESHAPPA,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 31ST WARD, ANEGUDNI ROAD,
GANGAVATHI, TQ. KOPPAL.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION
      REPRESENTED BY
      THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT BUILDING,
      DHARWAD-580001

2.    PUSHPANJALI GUNNAL
      W/O.HANUMANTAPPA GUNNAL,
      AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. SAROJ NAGAR,
      GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. B SHARANABASAVA, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN FIR (SC/ST) NO.290/2021 BY ITS ORDER DATED 14/07/2021 IN THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.108/2021 OF GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 354, 447, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(5)(A) OF SC/ST ACT AND GRANT BAIL.

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100173 OF 2021 BETWEEN SHRI. HARSHIT S/O. SHIVAMURTHY BHOVI AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. WORKING IN MOBILE SHOP, R/O. HAMALAR COLONY, GANGAVATHI TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, GANGAVATHI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011

2. PUSHPANJALI W/O. HANUMANTAPPA GUNNAL AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.SAROJ NAGAR, GANGAVATHI TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227 RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH B CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. B SHARANABASAVA, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/07/2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOPPAL IN FIR (SC/ST) NO.290/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL APPEAL BY ENLARGING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.8 ON REGULAR BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.108/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 307, 447, 504, 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SECS.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w) AND 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (PA) BILL, 2015.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order passed by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal whereby the

learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petitions filed

by the appellants herein.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that on

22.06.2021 at 8.45 p.m., in the night, the complainant

lodged a complaint alleging that on that day, at 2.00 p.m.

in the afternoon, she and her husband had been to her plot

situated in Sarojnagar, Gangavathi and they were

removing stones in their plot by using JCB and at 5.00

p.m., the accused along with appellant-Sanjay came there

and abused them in filthy language with reference to their

caste and appellant-Sanjay threatened the complainant by

showing a knife. It is alleged that at that time, a labour

Mestri snatched away the knife held by appellant-Sanjay,

but the appellant-Sanjay assaulted the husband of the

complainant by hands and kicked him and he also

assaulted him by iron rod. He was also attempting to

throttle his neck and when the complainant and one

Mahantesh tried to interfere, the other accused assaulted

the complainant by hands, and when accused-

Somashekhar was throttling the neck of the complainant,

appellant-Sanjay dragged the complainant by pulling her

heirs and also assaulted her. It is also alleged that

appellant-Sanjay has also threatened the complainant and

her family members by showing a knife and in this regard,

in the night, the complainant has filed a complaint. On the

basis of the complaint, the investigation officer has

registered the FIR in Crime No.108/2021 and appellant-

Sanjay, in Criminal Appeal No.100174/2021, was arrested

on 24.06.2021 while appellant-Harshit, in Criminal Appeal

No.100173/2021, was arrested on 29.06.2021. They

moved bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and

their bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, they have

filed these appeals.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for both the appellants and learned

HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for

respondent No.2. Perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for appellants would

contend that there is no specific overt act alleged against

these appellants and only omnibus allegations have been

made. It is contended that the appellants are in custody

since 24.06.2021 and 29.06.2021, respectively, and the

wound certificate also discloses that the complainant and

her husband have sustained only simple injuries. It is also

contended that they also undertake to abide by all the

terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. It is

further asserted that the appellant-Harshit, in Criminal

Appeal No.100173/2021, is no way concerned to the

alleged incident and no overt act is alleged against him

and his name does not find place either in FIR or in

complaint and he was simply arrested without there being

any specific allegations against him. Hence, for these and

amongst other grounds, it is prayed for admitting the

appellants on bail by setting aside the impugned order of

the learned Sessions Judge by allowing these appeals.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP as well as the

learned counsel for respondent No.2 objected the appeals

contending that the appellants have assaulted the

complainant and her husband by abusing them with

reference to their caste and there was an attempt on the

life of the complainant and her husband as the husband of

the complainant was assaulted by an iron rod by appellant-

Sanjay. Further they would contend that the matter is still

at the stage of investigation and in case, the appellants are

enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering

with prosecution witnesses and jumping on bail. Hence,

they would seek for dismissal of the appeals.

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by both

the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the

appellant in Criminal Appeal No.100174/2021 is accused

No.6 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.100173/2021 is

accused No.8. On perusal of the allegations made in the

complaint, it is evident that absolutely no allegations are

forthcoming against the appellant-Harshit and his name

also does not find place in the complaint or FIR. Even in

Remand Yaadi, no specific allegations have been made

against him as to why he has been incorporated as an

accused. Though it is asserted by the leaned counsel for

respondent No.2 that on the basis of further statement of

the complainant he has been incorporated, but no specific

role is attributed to appellant-Harshit. In what way he is

involved in the alleged offence, is not forthcoming and only

omnibus allegations have been made against him. Hence, I

do not find any impediment in allowing the appeal filed by

appellant-Harshit.

7. As regards, appellant-Sanjay, the allegations

were that he was possessing knife and he has shown it to

the complainant and threatened her. But the allegations

further disclose that a labour Mestri has snatched away the

knife from him. The other allegations are that he assaulted

the husband of the complainant by an iron rod, but

complaint allegations are silent as to on which part of the

body the assault was made. The other allegations against

him is that he pulled the complainant and assaulted her by

hands and while leaving the place he also shown knife to

the complainant and her husband. But earlier allegation

disclose that the knife was snatched away by labour Mestri

and subsequently allegation is regarding he showing knife.

When he again secured the knife is also not forthcoming.

Further, the records disclose that the recovery is also

concluded and nothing is required to be recovered from

the custody of this appellant-Sanjay. He was arrested on

24.06.2021 and was remanded to judicial custody, which

discloses that his presence is no more required by the

investigation agency. The records also disclose that there

appears to be some dispute regarding the plot and the

parties are required to settle it before the Civil Court. The

records further disclose that the complainant and her

husband suffered only simple injuries and no fatal injuries

are caused. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, I do not find any impediment in admitting the

appellant-Sanjay also on bail by allowing the appeal filed

by him. The other apprehensions raised by the learned

HCGP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 can be

meted out by imposing certain conditions on the

appellants. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in FIR (SC/ST)No.290/2021 is hereby set aside and the appellants are hereby directed to be enlarged on bail on their

executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:

i. They shall co-operate in the investigation.

ii. They shall mark their attendance before the S.H.O. on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. until final report is submitted.

iii. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

iv. They shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings, unless they are exempted by the court specifically.

v. They shall furnish proof of their correct address and shall intimate the Trial Court regarding change in address, if any.

Violation of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.

Sd/-

JUDGE yan