Karnataka High Court

Ashok S/O Subray Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2021

Author: K.Natarajan

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
                           BEFORE
          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101537/2020

BETWEEN:

1.     ASHOK S/O SUBRAY BHAT
       AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
       R/O HOSAGADDE, KODNAGADDE
       VILLAGE, TQ.SIRSI, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA 581 402.

2.     SMT. SUNANDA W/O SUBRAY BHAT
       AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O HOSAGADDE, KODNAGADDE VILLAGE,
       TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581 402.
                                                  ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRINIVAS KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY POLICE INSPECTOR, SIRSI RURAL P.S.
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2.     SMT. SUMA W/O GANESH BHOVIVADDAR
       AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
       R/O HOSAGADDE, JADIGADDE,
       KODSANGADDE, TQ. SIRSI,
       DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581402

                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
                                   2




      This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
praying to release the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the event
of their arrest in Sirsi Rural P.S. Crime No.118/2019 for the offence
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atorcities) Act and under Sections 354, 324, 504, 506 R/w. Section
34 of the IPC by allowing this petition.

      This Petition coming on for orders through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the
following:

                               ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2

for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.118/2019 for the offences

punishable under Sections 354, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34

of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act', for

brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of

one Smt. Suma Ganesh Bhovivaddar, the police registered a case

against the accused for the alleged offences. It is alleged by the

complainant in the complaint that her husband had purchased a

land adjacent to the land of the accused and cultivating the same.

The accused used to quarrel with them and on 06.10.2019 at 15.00

hours, accused were fencing in the middle of the property and when

the complainant requested them not to put up fence, accused No.2

abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of

her caste and accused No.1 dragged her by holding her hand and

torn her blouse and tried to outrage her modesty and assaulted her

with club on her shoulder and right leg and gave life threat to her.

Thereafter her husband came and shifted her to the hospital and

hence the complaint came to be filed. The police after registering

the case filed FIR against the petitioner. The accused apprehending

arrest in the hands of police, approached the Sessions Judge for

grant of bail, which came to be rejected on 15.10.2020. Hence the

petitioners are before this Court seeking for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently

contended that the complainant filed complaint against the

petitioners as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the 2nd

petitioner against the complainant's husband and on 17.08.2019

and the said case is still pending. The complainant in order to take

revenge against the petitioners made a false complaint. There is no

prima facie case made out against the accused persons to attract

the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioners

are ready to abide by any conditions. Hence he prayed for grant of

bail to the petitioners. He further contended that, in a similar case

this Court granted anticipatory bail in criminal petition

No.100603/2020 dated 09.07.2020. Therefore, he contended that

there is no bar for this Court to grant anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP objected the bail petition and

contended that, on looking to the averments made in the

complaint, which clearly shows that the offences committed by the

accused persons directly falls under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the

SC/ST(POA) Act. The accused persons were having knowledge

about the caste of the complainant. In the complainant dated

17.09.2019 also they have stated the caste of the complainant as

Vaddar. They have intentionally insulted the member of the SC/ST

community. Therefore, as there is bar under Section 18A of the

SC/ST (POA) Act, the Court has no power to grant anticipatory bail.

Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioners and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records,

it goes to show that, the accused No.2 previously filed a complaint

against the complainant's husband on 17.08.2019 stating that he

came and threatened them with dire consequences and a case

against the complainant's husband has been registered in Crime

No.93/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 323

and 354 of the IPC. The complaint averments goes to show that,

on 06.10.2019, the accused persons were fencing in the middle of

the property which was already purchased and cultivating by the

complainant. When the complainant Smt.Suma Ganesh

Bhovivaddar requested them not to construct fence, accused No.2

abused her by taking name of their caste as Vaddar and Holeya and

accused No.1 dragged her by holding her hand and torn her blouse

and outraged her modesty and assaulted her with club on her

shoulder and right leg and gave life threat to her. By that time, her

mother-in-law Smt. Basavva and neighbors Sri. Mahabaleshwar

Gouda and Krishna Jogi Pujari came there and pacified the quarrel.

It goes to show that the accused persons abused the complainant in

filthy language by taking her caste in the presence of other

persons, which is nothing but public view. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also not disputed that the petitioners are having

knowledge about the caste of the complainant as Bhovi Vaddar and

that belongs to Scheduled Caste. The complaint dated 17.08.2019

registered in Crime No.93/2019 shows that they have stated the

caste of the complainant as Vaddar. That means the accused

persons are very much aware about the caste of the complainant

and they picked up quarrel, assaulted the complainant by taking

her caste knowingly fully well that she is a member Scheduled

Caste intentionally insulted which attracts the provisions of Section

3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.100603/2020

dated 09.07.2020, wherein the contention was that the incident

took place in a fair and at that time complainant abused the

complainant without knowing that they belongs to SC/ST caste.

Therefore, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held in the said

case there is no bar for grant of bail under Section 18(A) of the

SC/ST(POA) Act. But in the instant case, it is not in dispute that

the accused/petitioners are already having knowledge about the

caste of the complainant, who belongs to the SC/ST community, as

per their own complaint filed prior to the lodging of the present

complaint. There is prima facie case made out against this

petitioner for having committed the offence under Section 3 of the

SC/ST Act. Therefore there is clear bar under Section 18(A) of the

SC/ST (POA) Act for granting anticipatory bail by invoking the

provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

7. This Court in an identical case in Jagadeesh & Anr.

Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Petition No.3055/2020

dated 06.08.2020, has elaborately considered the Act and held,

once the bail application is rejected by the Special Court or the trial

Court, as per Section 14A(2) of the amended SC/ST (POA) Act, an

appeal shall have to be filed before the High Court and the petition

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Section 14A of

the SC/ST (POA)Act, which reads as under:

"14A. Appeals.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in

the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal

shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an

interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special

Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2

of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an

order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court

granting or refusing bail.