Basavaraj S/O. Hanumantappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5161 Kant

                           1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 1 S T DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100307/2021

   BETWEEN:

   BASAVARAJ S/O. HANUMANTAPPA MADIWALAR
   AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
   R/O. HOSA (MATTI) MUDLAPUR,
   TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL - 583 233.
                                    ...APPELLANT
   (BY, SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

   AND:

   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATKA
         THROUGH PSI, MUNIRABAD P.S.,
         DIST - KOPPAL - 583 234.
         NOW REPRESENTED BY S P P,
         HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
         BENCH AT DHARWAD.

   2.   KAVITA S/O. KRISHNA PUJAR
        AGE: 29 YEARS,
        OCC: GOVT. OFFICIAL (NON-GAZETTED),
        R/O. HOSA (MATTI) MUDLAPUR VILLAGE,
        MUNIRABAD P.S. LIMITS,
        DIST. KOPPAL - 583 233.
                                   ....RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2)
                            2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1995, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL
APPEAL AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH MUNIRABAD P.S. CRIME
NO.222/2021, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/Ss 353, 354, 504 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a)
OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL
IN FIR (SC/ST) NO.463/2021.

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

                      JUDGMENT

The sole accused has filed this appeal

challenging the order dated 11.11.2021 passed

by the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Koppal, where under the bail application

filed by the appellant/accused sought in Crime

No.222/2021 of Munirabad Police Station

registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 353, 354 and 504 of The Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 ((hereinafter referred to

as the 'SC/ST(POA) Act', for brevity)) has been

rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that

one Smt. Kavita W/o. Krishna Pujar, working as

Asha Karyakarte at Hosamudlapur Village has

filed a complaint stating that on each and

every day she was going to each and every

house of the village and advising to get COVID-

19 vaccination, which was giving near

Hanuman Temple of Munirabad Dam and

requested the villagers to take vaccination. It

is further stated that on 17.09.2021 there was

Maha Abiyan in the village, so she went to each

and every house to tell the villagers to get

vaccination and at about 03.00 p.m., when she

was near Anganawadi Centre, at that time, the

appellant-accused asked the complainant why

she has not come to his house to intimate

regarding the vaccination to his family

members and warned that he is the brother of

a Member of the village and in every matter

she has to inform first to them and abused her

in filthy language. When the complainant

informed the accused not to abuse in filthy

words and further she told that on 13.09.2021

she has personally gone to his house and

informed his family members, appellant started

abusing her by using the name of her caste and

to prove whether she had gone to his house;

he dragged her holding her right hand inside

the Hanuman Temple to swear in, at that time,

his brothers Swamy, Y. Srinivas, Y. Ramrao

and Maruti rescued her. The appellant warned

the complainant to give all the information or

otherwise she is going to lose her job as Asha

Karyakarte. The said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.222/2021 for the

offences punishable under Sections 353, 354

and 504 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA)

Act. The appellant came to be arrested on

18.09.2021 and remanded to judicial custody.

The appellant filed bail application in FIR

(SC/ST) No.463/2021 and the same came to be

rejected by the learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Koppal by order dated

11.11.2021. Therefore, he challenged the said

order in this appeal.

3. Heard arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-accused,

the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State and the learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

4. It would be the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant-accused that

he is innocent, he has not committed any

offences as alleged and he has been falsely

implicated in this case. The offences alleged

are not punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. It is his further submission that as the

appellant is in judicial custody since

18.09.2021 for more than two months and that

now charge sheet has been filed appellant is

not required for any custodial interrogation.

Without considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail

application of the appellant, which requires

interference by this Court. With this, he

prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State

contented that the offence alleged against the

appellant is a serious offence. The charge-

sheet has been filed and there are two

eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. CWs.4 and 5.

On perusal of the entire charge-sheet, there is

a prima facie case against the appellant for the

offence alleged against him. Considering all

these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has

rightly rejected the bail application of the

appellant, which does not require any

interference of this Court. With this, he

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 has put forth similar contention to that of

the learned High Court Government Pleader.

7. Having regard to the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 - State, this Court

has gone through the records and the

impugned order.

8. The accusation leveled against the

appellant-accused is that he abused the

complainant touching her caste, obstructed her

in discharging her duties as a Public Servant,

outraged her modesty and threatened her. The

offences alleged are not punishable with death

or imprisonment for life. The bail application

of the appellant came to be rejected on the

ground that investigation was still under

progress. But, now the investigation is over

and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore the

appellant is not required for any custodial

interrogation. The offences are not punishable

with death or imprisonment for life. The

appellant is resident of Hosamudlapur Taluk in

Koppal District and he can be secured easily

for trial. Without considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions/Special Judge

has rejected the bail application of the

appellant, which requires interference by this

Court. The main objection of the prosecution

is that, if the appellant is granted bail he will

threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses. The said objection can be met with

by imposing stringent conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions of the counsel, this

Court is of the view that, there are valid

grounds for setting aside the impugned order

and granting bail to the appellant, subject to

stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 11.11.2021

passed in FIR(SC/ST) No.463/2021 by the

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Koppal is set aside. Consequently, the bail

application of the appellant stands allowed.

The appellant is ordered to be released on bail

in Crime No.222/2021 of Munirabad Police

Station, subject to the following conditions:

i) The appellant-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The appellant-accused shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The appellant-accused shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RH/Sbs*