Karnataka High Court
Ranganath And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 31 August, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200169/2021
BETWEEN:
1. RANGANATH
S/O. MARAYYA
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SHARANU @ SHARANABASAVA
S/O. BASSAYYA
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH R/O. SHAKAPUR SH VILLAGE
TQ: SHORAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHORAPUR P.S.
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURGI BENCH-585 102.
2. MOUNESH
S/O. MANASAPPA DODDAMANI
2
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
R/O. SHAKAPUR SH VILLAGE
TQ: SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585 224.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A OF
SC/CT (PA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME
NO.75/2021 OF SHORAPUR P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES
U/SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 R/W 149
OF IPC & SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (PA)
ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
COURT, YADGIR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
As per police notice dated 10.08.2021 furnished by
the learned High Court Government Pleader, respondent
No.2/First informant has been served.
2. Apprehending arrest in Crime No.75/2021 of
Shorapur Police Station, registered for offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506
R/W 149 of IPC & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of
SC/ST (PA) Act. Appellants namely Accused Nos.1 and 2
and other accused persons filed a petition under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions at Yadgir. The
learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.07.2021, has
rejected the petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2.
Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been
preferred under Section 14-A of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has
contended that the appellants are innocent and they have
not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that
only to harass the appellants, certain false allegations are
made that they have abused the complainant insulting the
name of his caste etc., He submits that the investigation is
already completed and appellants will furnish sufficient
surety to appear before the jurisdictional court and
therefore seeks to enlarge the appellants on bail.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader
contends that there are specific averments made in the
complaint that these appellants have abused the
complainant insulting his caste in public view and accused
No.2 has caused injuries to CW4-Raju. There are eye
witnesses to the incident in question. He contends that in
view of bar under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of SC/ST(PA)
Act, the application seeking anticipatory bail was rightly
rejected by the court below. Accordingly, seeks to reject
the appeal.
5. The material on record disclose that on
13.05.2021 during night hours, motor cycle of CW1 got
punctured and as such in order to get it repaired, he went
to the house of his uncle CW4. Thereafter, CW1 and CW4
went to the garage of CW4 at about 9.00 p.m., It is
alleged that at that time the accused were sitting in front
of the garage/shop of CW4. When CW4 enquired as to why
they are sitting near his shop eating gutka and smoking
cigarette, accused No.1 abused CW4 in filthy language as
"sanna jyati sule makkalya". Accused No.2 also abused
CW4 saying "holeya sule magane", thus insulted them
taking the name of their caste and further accused No.2 at
the instigation of accused No.1 picked up a stone that was
lying at the spot and assaulted on the chest of CW4 and
caused bleeding injuries to him.
6. As per the wound certificate made available by
the learned High Court Government Pleader, injuries
sustained by CW4 are mentioned as grievous in nature.
From the contents of the complaint and charge sheet, it is
crystal clear that there are specific allegations that these
two accused persons have abused CW1 and CW4 insulting
their caste. CWs.5 to 7 are the other eye witnesses to the
incident in question. There is a prima facie case against
the appellants for having committed an offence under the
SC/ST (PA) Act. Hence, appellants are not entitled for the
relief they have sought in this appeal.
7. In case any application is filed for regular bail
before the Sessions Court, same shall be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
8. With the above observation, appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
snc
