Karnataka High Court
Sri. N. Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2021
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.422/2021
Between:
Sri. N. Srinivas
S/o. Late Narayanappa
Aged about 51 years
Editor: Bangalore
Express Newspaper
R/at No.1684, 6th Cross,
Robertsonpet,
KGF - 563 122.
... Appellant
(By Sri. S. Balakrishna, Adv.)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
State by BEML Nagar Police Station
Represented by SPP,
High Court Building,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. Sri. S. N. Narayanaswamy K. M
MLA, Bangarapet Constituency,
Bangarpet 563 114.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1
R2-served)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A) of SC/ST
(POA) Act paying to direct respondent No.1 to release him on
bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.33/2020 for the offence
2
p/u/s 384, 506, 501 and 511 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the
Court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section
14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST
Act') and has sought for setting aside of the order of the
trial Court rejecting his application filed under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.59/2021 and seeks to be enlarged
on anticipatory bail.
2. The case that is made out by the complainant is
that on 05.12.2020, complaint has been made to the
jurisdictional police stating that the appellant herein had
abused him "¤Ã£ÉƧ⠺ÉÆ®AiÀÄ ±Á¸ÀPÀ£ÉAzÀÄ eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ
C£ÉÃPÀgÀÄ ¨ÉA§® EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". It is further stated that the appellant
was making defamatory statements about the complainant
in media and accordingly, complaint has been filed. It is
further made out in the said complaint that the appellant
had stated that he was running YouTube Channel and was
incurring expenditure and that he would not publish
anything about the complainant if funds are provided and it
is submitted that said incident occurred on 26.11.2020 at
about 5.30 p.m. when the complainant saw the appellant
near BEML Nagar officers' quarters. The FIR came to be
registered in Crime No.33/2020 for the offences punishable
under Sections 384, 506, 501 and 511 of IPC and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The petition filed before the trial Court came to
be rejected as per the order dated 06.02.2021 wherein the
learned District and Sessions Judge has remarked that
prima facie case is made out and accordingly, it is stated
that the limited jurisdiction of entertaining 438 petitions as
regards the offences under the special statute would be
permissible only if no prima facie case is made out and in
light of prima facie case being made out, appellant was not
entitled for bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the incident occurred near the officers'
quarters in BEML Nagar when the complainant was
travelling and saw the accused and that there is no
evidence of others being present. Hence, it was not a place
of public view. It is further contended that the allegations
made do not create nexus between the caste of the 2nd
respondent - complainant and the abuse and accordingly,
no prima facie case is made out, and custodial interrogation
as such may not be required. It is submitted that looking
into the nature of offence, case is made out for enlarging
the appellant on anticipatory bail. It is further submitted
that he undertakes to furnish all necessary material
regarding publications made in the YouTube channel as
regards the complainant and would co-operate in all manner
with respect to the investigation.
5. Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State submits that custodial
interrogation may be required to find out as to the various
other incidents wherein the appellant has made defamatory
statements and the same would come out only during
investigation and FIR as such is not conclusive as regards to
offences as made out and that further information may be
revealed during investigation. It is submitted that for the
purpose of eliciting the other incidents wherein defamatory
statements have been made in the media, i.e., YouTube
channel of the appellant, custodial interrogation is required.
It is also contended that addressing the complainant by his
caste is by itself defamatory and constitutes an offence
under the statute as the utterance of the caste in the
context of the complainant's position was a clear attempt to
humiliate the complainant in the context of his caste.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is noticed that the trial Court has rejected the
application primarily on the ground that prima facie case
regarding the commission of offence is made out and hence,
question of entering into the other aspects relating to the
anticipatory bail petition did not arise. A close perusal of the
order, however, would indicate that the approach of the
court ought to have been to elicit the nature of statement
made and to find out whether such statement or abuse
relating to the caste has been made only by virtue of the
complainant belonging to such caste. The ingredients of the
offence as are required to be established has been brought
out clearly in the judgment in the case of HITESH VERMA
VS. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER in
Criminal Appeal No.707/2020 wherein the Apex Court
has adverted to the two main ingredients that need to be
established which are that, firstly the statement must have
been made in any place within public view and secondly, the
statement is to be made only because the complainant
belongs to that caste. Insofar as the first ingredient is
concerned, prima facie it appears to be made in public
place. However, as regards to the second ingredient, it is to
be noticed that the statement made was that he belongs to
a particular caste and that he is a legislator from that caste.
It is a matter of trial and also demonstration by the
complainant that such statement was made reference to the
caste by the appellant in order to humiliate him as he was a
legislator belonging to that caste and that further it is in
that context the statement was made. It is a matter that is
to be established during trial and after evidence looking into
the statement of other witnesses and the context in which
such statement was made.
8. Insofar as the prima facie case is concerned as
regards the two ingredients, it appears that the matter is to
be established during trial. It could also be stated that while
considering the present appeal, taking note of the nature of
proceedings, it could be stated that prima facie commission
of offence with reference to the second ingredient appears
to be absent as observed above. Insofar as the requirement
of custodial interrogation is concerned, as pointed out by
the learned counsel for the appellant while taking note of
the undertaking referred to above and the undertaking to
co-operate with the investigation including furnishing of all
other reports relating to his statements made in the
YouTube channel, the necessity of custodial interrogation
may not arise.
9. Accordingly, in light of the discussions made
above, while putting the appellant on terms to ensure that
he does not repeat such statement which may have the
effect of hurting sentiments of the complainant which may
constitute an offence and while observing that the appellant
as a journalist needs to be cautious insofar as his
professional work is concerned so as not to trample upon
the right of others, case is made out for enlarging the
appellant on bail.
10. The appeal filed by the appellant under Section
14A of the SC/ST Act is allowed and the appellant is
enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.33/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 384,
506, 501 and 511 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the
SC/ST Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant shall appear in person before
the Investigating Officer in connection with
Crime No.33/2020 within one week from
the date of lifting of the lockdown and shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with
a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The appellant not to make any statement
against the complainant which may
constitute an offence.
(iii) The appellant shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way, any
witness.
(iv) The appellant shall physically present
himself and mark his attendance before the
concerned Station House Officer once in
fortnight between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00
p.m., till filing of the final report.
(v) In the event of change of address, the
appellant to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the appellant, shall result in
cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
