Babu Nayak vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3550 Kant

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1547 OF 2021


BETWEEN

1.    Babu Nayak
      S/o Venkataramana
      Aged about 21 years,
      Kondamari Village,
      Srinivasapura Taluk-563161.

2.    Anil Kumar
      S/o Venkataravanappa,
      Aged about 29 years,
      R/at Gownipalli Village,
      Srinivaspura Taluk-563161.
                                        ...Appellants
(By Sri Vishnumurthy, Advocate)

AND

1.    State of Karnataka
      By Gownipalli Police Station,
      Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
      High Court of Karnataka,
      Bengaluru-560001.

2.    Naveen Kumar,
      S/o Narasappa,
      Aged about 23 years,
      Thadigol Village,
                               2




     Srinivasapura Taluk,
     Kolar District-563135.
                                         ...Respondents
(By Sri.K.S. Abhijith, HCGP for R1;
    R2 - served)

      This Criminal Appeal is filed under 14(A)(2) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, praying to set aside the order passed by the
Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kolar
in CR.No.57/2021 vide dated 21.09.2021 and enlarge
them on bail in CR.No.57/2021 of Gownipalli Police
Station, for an offence punishable under Section 143, 147,
148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 149
of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act,
pending on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kolar.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:

                       JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Vishnumurthy, learned counsel for

appellants and Sri. K. S. Abhijith, learned HCGP for

respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has been served

through investigating officer. There is no

representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act challenging the order dated 21.09.2021

passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Kolar, rejecting their application for bail under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

3. On 4.9.2021, FIR was registered against the

appellants and other accused in Crime No.57/2021 for

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

323, 324, 504, 506, 354 R/w Section 149 of IPC. On

07.09.2021, on the basis of further statement of the

injured viz., Naveen Kumar, the offence under Section

307 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act came to be included in the FIR.

4. If the FIR is read, it appears that the genesis

of the alleged incident is teasing of two college going

girls. On 02.09.2021 at 4.30 p.m., an altercation took

place between the 1st petitioner and Pavan on one side

and the first informant and others on the other side.

Again on 04.09.2021, a quarrel took place inside a bus

and thereafter it is stated that 30 to 40 persons of

Gownipalli and Kondamari villages came and

altercated and in that course, it is stated that the

clothes of the girls were torn and some of them were

assaulted.

5. On 07.09.2021, one of the injured viz.,

Naveen Kumar gave further statement based on which

the police invoked offences under Section 307 of IPC

and the some offences under the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Therefore it is clear that the main reason for the

alleged incident is with regard to the teasing of college

going girls. It is submitted by the appellants' counsel

that 1st appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe and that

the 2nd appellant belong to Scheduled Caste. He has

produced caste certificate in this regard. This is not

disputed by the 2nd respondent. So if these two

appellants belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe respectively, a doubt arises with regard to

registration of FIR for offense under the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act. Moreover the appellants have produced the

wound certificate of Naveen Kuman, which shows that

the injury he sustained are simple in nature and in

this view registration of FIR for the offence under

Section 307 of IPC should be viewed with suspicion. If

these are the inferences that can be drawn, the

learned Judge of the court below appears to have

rejected application for bail made by the appellants on

the ground that their custodial interrogation may be

necessary. I do not find that this reason can be

sustained. Therefore the appeal deserves to be

allowed.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.09.2021

passed in Cr.No.57/2021 by the II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kolar is set aside. The appellants are

admitted to bail on each of them executing a bond for

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and providing two sureties for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. They

are subjected to the following conditions:

a. They shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

b. They shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

c. They shall not get involved in any criminal case.

           d. They       shall     mark       their
              attendance in the respondent





     police   station       once    in   15
     days,     on       a   Sunday       in
     between    9.00        AM     and   12
     noon, till conclusion of trial.




                              Sd/-
                             JUDGE



sd