Karnataka High Court
Rajendra @ Senniyappa vs The State Through on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1707 OF 2021
BETWEEN
RAJENDRA @ SENNIYAPPA,
S/O MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KADUVALU VILLAGE
HANUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313. ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI.P.MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE]
AND
1. THE STATE THROUGH
HANUR POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313
REP. SPP HIGH COURT
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. MADEVI @ MADEVAMMA
W/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SOLIGARU
P.G. PALYA VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. LEENA.C.SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP FOR R-1]
R-2 SERVED.
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.120/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 427, 447, 448 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS
3(1)(v), 3(1)(15), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.1 in Crime
No.120/2021 of Hanur Police Station, Chamarajanagara,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v),
3(1)(15), 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) ACT, (herein after referred to as
'SC/ST (POA) Act') and Sections 427, 447, 448 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as
'IPC').
2. The appellant had preferred a petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge him on bail before the
learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar.
The said petition was rejected vide order dated 30.09.2021.
Hence this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-
state as well as respondent No.2/complainant, who is present
before the Court in pursuance to the notice issued by this
Court.
4. The gist of the allegations in the complaint lodged
before the respondent Police are that an extent of 4.40 acres
of land in Survey No.251 of Kuduvaledoddi village was sold by
the accused to one Late Jadegowda of Havinamoole village in
the year 1993 and subsequent to his death, his legal heirs,
including the complainant are in possession and in the name
of the complainant a house was sanctioned by the Gram
Panchayat and she is residing in the said house. The accused
persons trespassed into the said property and destroyed the
grave of Jadegowda etc. In this connection on their complaint
to the police, both the parties were called on 05.08.2021 and
they were instructed not to cultivate the land till final decision
of the Court. Inspite of that, on 10.08.2021 the accused
trespassed into the said land and cultivated the land and also
broke open the lock of the house and thus committed the
aforementioned offences.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced
the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.171/2021 and in
O.S.No.154/2021 to show that there are civil cases pending.
O.S.No.179/2021 is filed by the appellant, his mother and
another for declaration, in respect of property bearing survey
No.251 measuring about 10.40 acres. The complainant is
defendant No.3 in the said suit. O.S. No.154/2021 is filed by
the appellant as well as two others for partition. The trespass
alleged to have committed by the accused persons is on
05.08.2021. Both the suits are filed prior to lodging of the
complaint.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the accused are in possession of the property
and therefore, allegation of trespass is baseless and without
any substance. However, the same cannot be taken into
consideration at this stage, as civil suits are pending. From
the material on record, it appears that there is a civil dispute
between the accused persons and the complainant and
subsequent to filing of the above suits the complaint has been
lodged. At this stage, it cannot be said that only on the
ground that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe, the offence has been committed. Hence
it cannot be said that there are prima-facie materials at this
stage, attracting the provisions of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes Act, so as to deny the relief sought by the
appellant. The prosecution has to establish its case during
trial. The observation made by the learned Session Judge that
there are sufficient and prima-facie materials against the
appellant for having encroached the land, may not be proper,
since civil cases are pending between the parties.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
contended that in view of the civil dispute between the
parties, there is likelihood of the accused threatening the
complainant and thus hampering the case of prosecution.
The said apprehension may be taken care of by imposing
necessary conditions. Hence the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The order dated 30.09.2021 passed in Crl. Misc.
No.287/2021 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge
Chamarajanagar is hereby set aside.
In the event of arrest of the appellant in crime
No.120/2021 of Hanur Police Station, Chamarajanagar, he
shall be released, subject to following conditions:
i) Appellant/accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two
sureties for like-sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court.
ii) Appellant shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court within a period of 10
days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and execute the bond as noted
above.
iii) Appellant shall furnish proof of his residential
address and shall inform the Investigation
Officer/Court, in case of change in the
address.
iv) Appellant shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within a period of one
week after executing the bond and shall co-
operate with the investigation of the case.
v) Appellant shall not put any threat to the
complainant or to any of her family
members.
vi) Appellant shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
vii) Appellant shall appear before the trial Court
regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
