Sri Neelakantaiah S/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3248 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100186/2021
BETWEEN:

1.     SRI NEELAKANTAIAH S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
       AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. HARAKABHAVI, VILLAGE,
       TAL KUKLIGI, DIST BALLARI
2.     SHRI. VINAYKUMAR S/O NEELAKANTAIAH
       AGE 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
       TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST BALLARI
                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAHALLI,
       NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD
       BENCH AT DHARWAD
2.     SRI. DURUGAPPA U. S/O OBAYYA
       AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
       R/O. HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
       TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST BALLARI
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP,
    R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED.)
      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(PA) ACT. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPELLANTS / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CRIME NO.39/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
                                 2




PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324, 420, 504 AND 506 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND
3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, BY THE HOSAHALLI
POLICE.

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

                             JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a

memo stating that appeal against appellant No.2/accused

No.2 is not pressed. The memo is taken on record and the

appeal filed by appellant No.2/accused No.2 Vinaykumar S.

Neelakantaiah stands dismissed as not pressed.

2. Appellant No.1 has filed this appeal under

Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the SC/ST Act' for short) seeking

anticipatory bail in crime No.39/2021 of Hosahalli Police

Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 420, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST

Act.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case are that,

Government has granted patta in respect of land bearing

Sy.No.203/A measuring 12.04 acres situated at

Harakabhavi village to the complainant's grandfather by

name Tokenahalli Obayya under SC/ST Scheme and his

name appeared till 1974-75. It is alleged that the said land

was purchased without obtaining permission from the

Government and they have cheated the complainant by

illegally purchasing the land about 2.00 acres, out of 12.04

acres on 19.11.2020 and got registered their name. It is

alleged that complainant has given a complaint to the

revenue officer in this regard and as such, the appellants

having the knowledge of lodging the complaint by the

complainant, on 07.02.2021 at about 11.00 a.m. when the

complainant was draining the water to the groundnut crop

in his land, the appellants abused him with reference to his

caste and assaulted him with stick and hands. Hence, it is

alleged that the appellants have committed the offences as

alleged. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the

complainant, a case was registered in crime No.39/2021

for the offences referred to supra. The appellants

apprehending their arrest approached the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ballari and the learned

Sessions Judge by order dated 06.07.2021 rejected the

anticipatory bail petition. Hence, the appellants claim that

they have approached this court.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent-

State. Perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that there are transactions since long time and no

overt act is alleged against appellant No.1 and the court

below committed an error in rejecting the bail petition. He

would contend that bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act

is not applicable as against appellant No.1. Hence, he

seeks to admit appellant No.1 on anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader has seriously objected the appeal and contended

that appellant No.1 along with his son appellant No.2 have

trespassed into the land of the complainant and abused

him with reference to his caste and assaulted him. He

would contend that there is prima facie material and the

evidence of eye-witness is available and as such, he

sought for rejection of the appeal, as there is bar for

granting anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST

Act.

7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that the incident has taken place on

07.02.2021 at 11.00 a.m. The allegation further disclose

that appellant No.2/accused No.2 has assaulted the

complainant by abusing him with reference to his caste

and no allegations are made against appellant

No.1/accused No.1. Further, the complainant claimed that

he was in the land allotted to his grand father, but which

survey number the alleged offence has taken place is not

at all forthcoming. It is alleged that, in the FIR the alleged

incident has taken place in Sy.No.203/A, but there is no

evidence that Sy.No.203/A is in possession of the

complainant. The records produced by the appellants does

disclose that lot of transactions have taken place and the

entire land has been transferred by the members of the

complainant's family and there is no evidence to show that

complainant's family is in possession and cultivation of the

land. Under these circumstances, when there is no specific

allegation against appellant No.1 regarding he abusing the

complainant with reference to his caste, question of

attracting offence under SC/ST Act against him at this

juncture does not arise at all. Looking to the age of

appellant No.1, there is no impediment for admitting him

on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the

learned HCGP could be meted out by imposing certain

conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal appeal is partly allowed. The order

dated 06.07.2021 passed by the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge At Ballari in Crl.Misc.No.248/2021 rejecting

the anticipatory bail of appellant No.1/accused No.1 is set

aside.

In the event of arrest of appellant No.1/accused No.1

in crime No.39/2021 of Hosahalli Police Station registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 420, 504

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

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, he shall be

released on bail, on his executing personal bond for a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, subject

to the following conditions:

i. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall surrender

before Investigating Officer within 15 days

from today and in the event of his surrender as

directed above, Investigating Officer shall

release him on bail as directed.

ii. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall co-operate

in the investigation and mark his attendance

before the S.H.O. on every first and third

Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till

submission of the charge sheet.

iii. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall not tamper

with the prosecution witnesses either directly

or indirectly.

iv. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall be regular in

attending the trial proceedings, unless he is

exempted by the court specifically.

v. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall furnish

proof of his correct address and shall intimate

the court regarding change in address, if any.

Violation of the above conditions would result in

cancellation of the bail automatically.

The appeal as against appellant No.2/accused No.2

stands dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBS/-