Sri Punithkumar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11294 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1235 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.   Sri Punithkumar
     S/o. Chand rashekaraiah
     Aged about 32 years

2.   Sri Chandrashekaraiah
     S/o. Ning egowda
     Aged about 62 years

     Both are residing at
     Vadd arahalli Village
     Belluru Hobli, Nagamang ala Taluk
     Mandya District-571 418.
                                         ...Appellants
(By Smt. M.V. Thanuja, Advocate)


AND:

1.   The State of Karnataka
     By Bellur Police
     Nag amang ala Circle
     Mandya District-571 418
     Reptd. by SPP
     Hig h Court of Karnataka
     Beng aluru-560 001.

2.   Smt. Manjula
     W/o Nag araju
     Aged about 40 years
     R/at Karijeerahalli Villag e
                                :: 2 ::


      Belluru Hobli
      Nag amang ala Taluk
      Mandya District-571 418.
                                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP for R1;
 R2 served - unrep resented)

      This   Criminal     Appeal      is     filed    under   Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
imp ugned ord er passed by the V Addl. District and
Sessions     Judge,     Mandya        in     Crl.Misc.No.522/2022
dated 02.07.2022 vide Annexure -C and etc.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard Smt. M.V.Thanuja, learned counsel for

the appellants and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but

there is no representation on her behalf.

2. This appeal is filed under Section

14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, challenging

the correctness of the order dated 02.07.2022

passed by the V Additional District and Sessions :: 3 ::

Judge, Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.522/2022. The

appellants filed an application under Section 438

of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail for the

offences under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324,

354(B), 327 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(e), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and

3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act ('SC/ST Act' for short). Their

application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Hence this appeal.

3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that

just because Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars

granting anticipatory bail, the court below appears

to have not entertained the appellants' application

for anticipatory bail. But a plain reading of the

FIR indicates primarily that the dispute between

the appellants and the second respondent is with

regard to cultivation of government land in :: 4 ::

Sy.No.62 of Vaddarahalli village. According to

second respondent she was in possession of the

said land. But according to appellants, they were

cultivating it for a quite long time and they have

made an application to the revenue authorities

seeking regularization of their cultivation. It is

submitted by the appellants' counsel that a

document in this regard was also produced before

the court below, but the same has not been

considered. Copy of the said document is

produced here. A perusal of the same indicates

that Manjula W/o Chandrashekaraiah i.e.,

appellant No.2 was the applicant for regularization

of the illegal cultivation of the land in Sy.No.62 to

the extent of 4 acre 38 guntas. Therefore this

document indicates that the land dispute could be

the reason for the incident said to have taken

place on 01.06.2022.

:: 5 ::

4. It can be made out that though the

incident is said to have taken place on

01.06.2022, the FIR was registered on

04.06.2022. Though some explanation is given for

the delay, it is a matter of appreciation of

evidence by the trial court. Moreover it is very

clearly written that accused No.3-D.Venkatesh is a

member of Dalit Sangharsha Samiti. That means

he must be a member of scheduled caste or

scheduled tribe. His very involvement in the

incident indicates that probably the incident dated

01.06.2022 might not have taken place in the

background of caste factor. It can only be a mere

dispute with regard to cultivation of government

land. All these aspects have not been considered

by the court below. It is now an established

principle that inspite of bar under Section 18 of

the Act, if prima-facie case with regard to taking

place of incident in the background of caste factor

is not forthcoming, anticipatory bail can be :: 6 ::

granted. The case on hand clearly indicates a

mere land dispute. Moreover appellant No.2 is

aged about 62 years. The presence of appellants

cannot be secured for investigation. Therefore the

order of the trial court cannot be sustained.

Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed .

The ord er d ated 02.07.2022 p assed in Crl.Misc.522/2022 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set aside.

In the event of arrest of the app ellants by the respond ent police in connection with Crime No.124/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The app ellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

(i) They shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

:: 7 ::

(ii) They shall attend the police station whenever their presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

(iii) They shall not threaten the witnesses and tamp er with evid ence.

(iv) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in fortnight preferably on Sund ay between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till completion of the investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-