Shri. Ajay S/O Dodda Fakeerappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2149 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF JUNE 2021
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100090 OF 2021
                        C/W
         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100113 OF 2021


   IN CRIMINAL A PPEAL NO.100090 OF 2021

   BETWEEN

   1 . S HRI. GAVISID DAPPA
   S/O FAKEERAPPA GUGRI
   AGE 20 YEARS ,OCC:AGRICULTURE,

   2 . S HRI CHANDRA PPA
   S/O BETADAPPA A JJI
   AGE 28 YEARS , OCC:DRIVER,

   3 . S HRI SHA RANAPPA
   S/O BUDDAPPA UPPAR
   AGE 26 YEARS , OCC:AGRICULTURE

   4 . S HRI CHETAN
   S/O PARASHURAM UPPAR
   AGE 20 YEARS , OCC: AGRI CULT URE,

   ALL R/ O HITNAL,
   TALUK AND DISTRICT: KOPPA L-583234

                                        ...A PPELLANTS

   (BY SRI.SANTOS H B MALAGOUDAR, A DV.)

   AND
                            2




1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI,MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION,
REPRES ENTED BY ITS ADDL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUT OR, S PP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, DHRWAD-580011

2 . S RI CHIDANAND S/O RAMESH BHOVI
AGE 28 YEARS , OCC GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O GANGAVATHI
TAL. GANGAVATHI ,DIST KOPPAL-583227

                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP FOR R1)
(R2-SERVED)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 OF THE
SCHEDULED CAST ES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT , 1989 R/W 439 OF
CR.P.C. S EEKING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17.04.2021 PASS ED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS / SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL IN FIR
(SC/ST) NO.211/ 2021. B) AND CON SEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE PRESENT CRI MINAL APPEAL BY ENLARGING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED      NOS.2,3,8,10   ON     REGULAR
BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED
FIT IN MUNIRABAD P.S. CRIME N O.78/ 2021 F OR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355,
427, 504, 506, 149 OF I PC AND SEC. 3( 1)(r) , 3(1) (s)
OF SCHED ULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) A CT, 2015.


IN CRIMINAL A PPEAL NO.100113 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1 . S HRI. AJAY
S/O DODDA FAKEERAPPA GUNNAL
AGE. 20 YEARS , OCC. LABOUR,

2 . MARUTI S/O.HULAGA PPA GUGRI
AGE. 27 YEARS , OCC. AGRI CULT URE,
                          3




3 . D EVARAJ
S/O. BASA PPA HA NCHINAL @ CHOUDAKI
AGE. 22 YEARS , OCC. LABOUR,

4 . D EVANNA @ D EVARAJ
S/O. SOMAPPA DYAMARAYA
AGE. 25 YEARS , OCC. AGRI CULT URE,

ALL ARE R/ O. HIT NAL,
TQ: AND DIST .: K OPPAL 583234.
                                    ...A PPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SANTOS H B MALAGOUDAR, A DV.)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI,
MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION ,
REPRES ENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR,
SPP OFFI CE, HI GH COURT OF KARNA TAKA,
DHARWAD 580011.

2 . CHIDANAND S/ O. RAMESH BHOVI
AGE:28 Y EARS, OCC:GOVT . EMPLOYEE
R/O.GANGAVATHI
TQ. GANGAVATHI , DIST. KOPPAL-583227

                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
(R2-SERVED)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF
THE SC/ST (P.A) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 17/04/ 2021 PASS ED BY THE COURT
OF THE PRINCI PAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS /
SPECIA L  JUDGE,   AT  KOPPAL   IN   FIR  (SC/ST)
NO.211/ 2021  AN D   CONSEQUENTLY    ALLOW    THE
PRESENT CRIMINAL APPEAL BY ENLARGING THE
APPELLANTS / ACCUSED NOS .4, 5, 6, 7 ON REGULA R
BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED
FIT IN MUNIRABAD P.S. CRIME N O.78/ 2021 F OR THE
OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 143,
                               4




147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 427, 504, 506, 149 OF I PC
AND SECS.3(1)( r), 3( 1)(s) OF T HE SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) BAI L, 2015.


    THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON                    FOR
ORDERS THIS D AY, THE COURT DELIVERED                   T HE
FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

Crl.A.No.100090/2021 has been filed by

accused Nos.2, 3, 8 and 10 challenging the

order dated 17.04.2021.

2. Crl.A.No.100113/2021 has been filed by

accused Nos.4 to 7 challenging the order dated

17.04.2021.

3. In both the appeals the order under

challenge is dated 17.04.2021 passed by Prl.

District and Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal

rejecting the bail applications filed by the

accused Nos.2, 3, 8 and 10 and 4, 5, 6 and 7

in FIR No.(SC/ST)No.211/2021 of Munirabad

Police Station Crime No.78/2021 for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 143,

147, 148, 323,324, 355, 427, 504, 506, R/W

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity) and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989

(hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST (POA)

Act', for brevity).

4. The notice to respondent No.2 has been

served and he remained unrepresented.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for

appellants and learned High Court Government

Pleader for Respondent/State.

6. The case of the prosecution is that one

Chidanand S/o Ramesh Bhovi, AEE, Karnataka

Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation

Department, Sub-division, Gangavathi had filed

complaint stating that on 25.03.2021 at about

10.30 a.m. the complainant and his contractor

one Nagaraj S/o Yallappa Chalageri, Bhovi,

along a rented car driver one Prashant S/o

Laxman Bhovi went in car bearing No.KA-

37/B-0088 to Koppal DFO Office in order to

discuss about Chikkabenaskal Rajeev Gandhi

Drinking Water Scheme. While returning, when

they were near Shahapur Toll while they were

proceeding to Gangavathi at about 4.15 p.m.,

the toll staff stopped the car and asked about

toll charges, for which the driver of the car

said since it is a Government vehicle it is

exempted from paying toll charges but the toll

staff did not agree and persistently demanded

toll charges in this process an altercation took

place between the accused/appellants and the

complainant and eventually it lead to

assaulting and abusing the complainant by

taking his caste name and as such he was

alleged to have been humiliated in the public

and they alleged to have given threat with dire

consequences and caused damage to their car

by pelting stones. A written complaint filed by

the said Chidanand came to be registered in

Crime No.78/2021 of Munirabad Police Station

for the aforesaid offences. The appellants

were arrested on 25.03.2021 and remanded to

judicial custody. The appellants have filed bail

applications and the same was rejected by Prl.

District and Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal by

order dated 17/04/2021 by two separate

orders. Aggrieved by the said orders, the

appellants are before this Court seeking to set

aside the said orders and grant of regular bail.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has

submitted that on perusal of the entire

complaint, no overt acts of the

appellants/accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 have

been stated. The name of the

appellants/accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 have

been mentioned only at the instance of accused

No.1-Suresh when he revealed their names on

seeing the video clips received by one Krishna,

Police Constable through social media. He

further contended that the appellants/accused

Nos.2 to 8 and 10 are innocent and they have

not committed any offences as alleged and

they have been falsely implicated in the case.

He further contended that the offences alleged

are not punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. He further contended that the Trial

Court ignored all these aspects and therefore,

the order passed by the Trial Court requires to

be set aside. With this he prayed to allow the

appeals.

8. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that

investigation has been completed and charge

sheet has been filed against the appellants and

other accused for the offences stated in the

FIR. CW-4 and CW-5 are injured eye

witnesses. CW6 to CW.8 are eye witnesses to

the incident. The learned HCGP has made

available the copy of the charge sheet. He

further contended that on looking in to the

charge sheet material, there is prima facie

case against the appellants for the offences

alleged against them. If the appellants are

released on bail, they will tamper prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice. With this he

prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

9. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader, I have

carefully and cautiously perused the FIR,

Complaint, impugned orders and charge sheet

papers. The complainant is a public servant.

He was passing through the toll in which the

appellants/accused and others were traveling

in Car bearing No.KA-37/B-0088. On seeing

the said registration number, it appears that it

is not a Government car and it is a private car.

On looking to the complaint and charge sheet

papers, the main allegation is against the

accused No.1/Suresh. No overt acts have been

alleged against appellants in the FIR and

complaint. The name of the appellants have

been stated by accused No.1 Suresh on looking

to the video clip shown by appellants which is

received by one of the Police staff in his mobile

through social media. The offences alleged are

not punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. There are no criminal antecedents of the

appellants. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the appellants were aware of

the caste of the complainant prior to the date

of incident. The appellants are in judicial

custody since 25.03.2021. As charge sheet is

filed, appellants are not required for custodial

interrogation. All these aspects have not been

considered by the trial Court while passing

impugned orders. Hence, the impugned orders

require to be set aside by allowing the appeals.

10. The main objection of the prosecution is

that if the appellants are granted with bail,

they will tamper prosecution witness, the said

objection may be set right by imposing some

stringent conditions.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and submission of the counsel, this Court is of

the view that there are valid grounds for

setting aside the impugned orders and granting

bail subject to terms and conditions. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Crl.A. No.100090 / 2021 and Crl.A.

No.100113 / 2021 are allowed.

Impugned orders dated 17.04.2021 passed

by Prl. District and Sessions/Special Judge,

Koppal in FIR (SC/ST) No.211/2021 are set

aside.

The bail applications filed by

appellants/accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed.

Consequently, the appellants / accused Nos.2

to 8 and 10 shall be released on bail in Crime

No.78/2021 of Munirabad Police Station subject

to the following conditions:

i) The appellants/accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.

ii) The appellants/accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The appellants/accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Hm b