Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2021
Author: K.S.Mudagal
Crl.A.No.258/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.258/2021
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/A: THORENAGASANDRA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 123.
2. SHIVANNA
S/O GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A: THORENAGASANDRA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 123. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR H.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. NAGESH M
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT THORENAGASANDRA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 123. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
Crl.A.No.258/2021
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF REJECTION OF THE BAIL PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1401/2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS SEEKING ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CONNECTION
WITH CR.NO.391/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324,
504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND ALLOW THIS
APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri Rohith, B.J. Learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that report of the Investigating Officer
regarding service of notice to respondent No.2. As per
the report and acknowledgement in copy of the notice,
respondent No.2 is served on 12.02.2021. He has not
chosen to appear before the Court.
2. Heard.
3. Aggrieved by the order of II Additional
District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc
No.1401/2020 rejecting their anticipatory bail petition,
Crl.A.No.258/2021
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the
above appeal.
4. On the basis of complaint of one Nagesh,
Madanayakanahalli Police have registered the Crime
No.392/2020 against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with
34 of IPC and Section 3 (I)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 ('the Act' for short).
5. The gist of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant had lent loan of Rs.2,00,000/-
to Geethamma the wife of petitioner No.2. On
08.10.2020 at 8.15 p.m. when the complainant went to
her house seeking repayment of his amount, the
petitioners taking objections to that abused with
reference to his caste, assaulted him with rod and
caused him injuries.
6. Apprehending their arrest in the said case,
the petitioners filed the Crl.Misc.No.1401/2020 before
Crl.A.No.258/2021
the II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special
Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru seeking
anticipatory bail. The trial Court by the impugned
order, rejected the said application on the sole ground
that Section 18 of the Act bars granting anticipatory
bail.
7. The records produced by the petitioners
show that regarding the same incident, accused No.1
filed the complaint in Crime No.392/2020 against
complainant party of this case alleging that in the
background of second petitioner's wife having
objectional relationship with Nagesh the complainant
of the present case, there was a quarrel and Nagesh
assaulted him with a chopper and caused him grievous
injuries.
8. The said case was registered for the
offences punishable under Section 324, 504, 307 read
with Section 34 IPC. In that case, Nagesha filed
anticipatory bail application before this Court in
Crl.A.No.258/2021
Crl.P.No.5945/2020 and anticipatory bail was granted
on 11.11.2020. Thus, crime Nos.391/2020 and
392/2020 are the case and the counter case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that alleged offences were not the outcome of any caste
discrimination, therefore, the trial Court should not
have invoked Section 18 of the Act.
10. Per contra, Sri Rohit B. J, learned HCGP
opposes the petition on the ground that Section 18 of
the Act bars invocation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the
case.
11. Reading of both copies of the complaint
indicate that the incident occurred not in the
background of the caste discrimination, but due to the
apprehension that one of the family member had an
affair with Nagesh the complainant. Apart from that
the incident took place at 8.30 p.m. within the house of
the petitioners.
Crl.A.No.258/2021
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors.1 and Hitesh Verma
v. State Of Uttarkhand And Anr.2 has held that Section
18 of the Act can be invoked to bar an application
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in the cases where the
offences are the outcome of the caste discrimination. It
is further held that if prima-facie it is shown that caste
discrimination was not motive for the crime, the power
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to grant
anticipatory bail.
13. There are case and counter case. Petitioner
No.1 of this case said to have suffered severe injury
than the complainant. Prima-facie the incident was not
the outcome of caste based discrimination. Under the
circumstances, it is a fit case to grant of anticipatory
bail.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order
rejecting the anticipatory bail application is hereby set
aside.
1AIR 2020 SC 1036
2 AIR 2020 SC 5584
Crl.A.No.258/2021
The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in
Crime No.391/2020 of Madanayakanahally Police
Station, subject to following conditions;
(i) Petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) They shall execute personal bond in a sum
of Rs.25,000/- and furnish two sureties in
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer/trial Court for their
appearance.
(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating
Officer/Court as and when required for the
purpose of investigation/trial. &
(iv) They shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
Pending I.As. stood disposed of.
Hand Delivery of operative portion of the order is
permitted.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
