Ramanagouda S/O Ninganagouda vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3506 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

         CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200199/2021

BETWEEN:

RAMANAGOUDA S/O NINGANAGOUDA
@ BASAVANTARAYA ONAKIHAL
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O.KODAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 212.
                                               ...APPELLANT

             (BY SRI. R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1)     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH THE SHO., TALIKOTI PS.,
       REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       KALABURAGI-585102.

2)     SMT.LAKSHMI BAI W/O. PARSHURAM WADDAR
       AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
       R/O KODAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL
       DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586212.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS


       (BY SRI.GURURAJ.V.HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
                 NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
                                    2




      THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC.14-A OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT
01/10/2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN SPECIAL CASE (SC/ST)
NO.4/2016.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 14A(1) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the SC/ST Act' for short) praying

this Court to set aside the impugned order dated

01.10.2021 passed in Special Case No.04/2016 by the II

Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura

and set at liberty.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the

prosecution has initiated the criminal proceedings against

this appellant and other accused persons for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354,

504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section

3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

3. The police after investigation filed the charge

sheet and the matter is set down for trial. This appellant

was not appeared before the Trial Court. Hence, NBW was

issued and this appellant has been produced by surety

before the Trial Court. The trial Court discharged the

surety and taken this appellant into custody. Hence, the

present appeal is filed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/accused No.18 would vehemently contend that

the order impugned is illegal and without application of

mind and the trial Court ought to have provided an

opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation. The

Trial Court has completely ignored the affidavit filed

regarding the confusion with respect to the father's name

of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the order passed by the trial

Court is erroneous and illegal. It requires an interference

of this Court. The discrepancy with regard to the father

name is concerned, that has been clarified by filing an

affidavit and accused Nos.16 and 17 are the sons of this

accused. Learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contend that this appellant is suffering from

Cancer and he has been regularly appearing before the

trial Court. Only in some occasions that too when he was

not keeping well, he could not appear before the trial

Court. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

5. The learned counsel in support of his

arguments also placed some additional documents

including the order sheet and also the medical records

pertaining to the treatment taken by this appellant i.e., in

Sri Shankara Cancer Hospital & Research Centre.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State would

submit that even on perusal of the entire order sheet, it

reveals that he has not been appearing before the Trial

Court and immediately after taking the bail he did not

appear before the Trial Court regularly. The learned High

Court Government Pleader also would submit that when

the witnesses are present before the trial Court he did not

appear before the Trial Court. Some of the witnesses have

also bound over when the accused was not present.

Hence, it is not a case for exercising the discretion.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the first respondent-State and on perusal of

the order sheet, no doubt, he appeared before the Trial

Court on 03.03.2016 and he was enlarged on bail. The

records also reveal that he was not appearing regularly

before the Trial Court and an exemption petitions are filed

periodically. The trial was commenced in the year 2019

and during commencement of trial also this appellant was

not appeared regularly before the Court and only on some

dates he had appeared before the Court. It is not in

dispute that accused Nos.16 and 17 are the sons of this

accused.

8. The learned counsel also placed the medical

records of Sri Shankara Cancer Hospital & Research

Centre. Those documents pertaining to the year 2015,

wherein, final diagnosis mentioned as Carcinoma Pyriform

Fossa, Post week 3 Chemotherapy for supportive care.

9. Having taken note of the medical records and

apart from the learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that the accused undertakes to appear regularly

before the trial Court without seeking any exemption. On

considering the factual situation and also there were

number of accused persons before the trial Court and

when this appellant also not disputed the identity to go

ahead with the proceedings of trial, I am of the opinion

that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of

the appellant. However, the appellant is directed to be

present before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing

except if there is any health reasons, which is also to be

supported by the medical documents.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 01.10.2021 passed in Special Case No.04/2016 by the II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The appellant is enlarged on bail subject to executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(iv) The appellant is directed to be present before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing except on the medical reasons that too with support of the medical reports.

In view of allowing of the appeal, I.As, if any, do not

survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*