Karnataka High Court
Bheema @ Bheemshappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2021
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200239/2021
BETWEEN:
1. BHEEMA @ BHEEMSHAPPA
S/O SHARANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O STATION AREA, LADEJ GALLI,
YADGIRI
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIR-585202.
2. LOKESH @ AKASH
S/O HANAMANTHA TALAWAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O NEAR POST OFFICE
TALAWAR GALLI
JEWARGI, TQ. JEWARGI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585110.
3. PAPYA @ MUKESH
S/O BALAJI GAIKWADA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O STATION AREA, YADGIRI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
4. NIVARTI S/O KESHAV RAO CHAWAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
2
STATION AREA, YADGIRI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
5. GANESH @ GANESH KUMAR
S/O ASHOK BAPKAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
STATION AREA, LADEJ GALLI,
YADGIRI
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585202
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADGIRI TOWN
POLICE STATION
NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585105
2. SURESH S/O LAXMAN MADDI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESSMAN
R/O SHIVANAGAR, YADGIRI,
TQ. YADGIRI, DIST. YADGIRI
(ADDRESS MENTIONED AS PER
COMPLAINT AND COLUMN
NO.5 OF THE FIR) 585202.
3. RAMU S/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O SHIVA NAGAR, YADGIRI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
4. SUNILKUMAR S/O BHIMARAYA NAYAK
3
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O SHIVA NAGAR, YADGIRI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
5. TOTENDRA S/O NARAYAN NAYAK
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O SHIVA NAGAR, YADGIRI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI-585202.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL,
HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHRAVANAKUMAR MATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-
A(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2021 PASSED BY THE DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR IN CRL.MISC.NO.665/2021
AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
RELEASE THE APPELLANTS (ACCUSED NOS.7, 8, 9, 18 AND
19 AS PER FIR) ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.110/2021 OF YADGIR TOWN
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W SECTION
149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-
a) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State and also learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (PA) Act') by
accused Nos.7 to 9, 18 and 19 seeking to set aside the
order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the District and
Sessions Judge at Yadgiri in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.665/2021 and direct the respondent-Police to release
the appellants on bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No.110/2021 of Yadgiri Town Police Station,
Yadgiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST
PA Act.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
appellants by forming themselves into an unlawful
assembly assaulted the complainant and the victims
with their hands, stones and plastic chair and abused
them in filthy language and caused life threat. The
appellants taking the victims' caste name in the public
subjected them for humiliation. Based on the complaint,
case has been registered for the above offences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would submit that only general omnibus
allegation of invoking special enactment is made and no
specific allegation is made in the complaint as to who
uttered the word by taking caste name subjecting the
victims to the humiliation in the presence of general
public. He also submits that the other offence invoked
against the appellants is Section 324 of IPC, alleging
that they by using stone as well as chair assaulted the
victims, the same is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State
would submit that the accused-Chethan and Ganesh
apart from assaulting, abused the victims taking their
caste name and caused life threat to the complainant
and victims stating that they would not leave them alive.
Hence, there is bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST (PA)
Act to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that the accused persons
have not only assaulted the complainant and the victims
but also they have abused the victims by taking their
caste name subjecting the victims for humiliation in the
presence of general public. Hence, bar under Section
18A of the SC/ST (PA) Act is attracted.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and also
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and
looking into the contents of the complaint dated
15.10.2021, though a detailed complaint is filed, only
general omnibus allegation of invoking special
enactment is made and no specific allegation is made in
the complaint as to who uttered the word by taking
caste name subjecting the victims to the humiliation in
the presence of general public. When such being the
facts of the case, the very contention of the learned
High Court Government Pleader as well as learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 that it attracts the bar
under Section 18A of the SC/ST (PA) Act cannot be
accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 159 held that if the
complaint prima facie discloses invoking of Special
enactment, then bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST
(PA) Act would come into play and if the complaint does
not disclose invoking of the offence, bar will not come in
the way of exercising power under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. Taking into account that the other offences are
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life as
contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is
appropriate to exercise power under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., to enlarge the appellants on bail.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, appellants
shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with Crime No.110/2021 of Yadgiri Town
Police Station, Yadgiri, for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section
149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a)
of the SC/ST PA Act, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The appellants shall surrender
themselves before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order
and shall execute personal bonds for a
sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Only) with one surety each for the like-
sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The appellants shall not indulge in
hampering the investigation or
tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellants shall co-operate with
the Investigating Officer to complete
the investigation and they shall appear
before the Investigating Officer, as and
when called for.
(iv) The appellants shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer
without prior permission till the charge
sheet is filed or for a period of three
months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The appellants shall mark their
attendance once in a month i.e., on
30th of every month between 10.00
a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the
Investigating Officer for a period of
three months or till the charge sheet is
filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
