Karnataka High Court
Mahesh M K vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1043 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2022
IN CRL.A.NO.1043/2022
BETWEEN :
Mahesh M K
S/o Kallegowd a
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.79, Mallenahalli
Malavalli Taluk
Mandya District
PIN - 571 405
...Appellant
(By Sri M.Krishnegowda, Advocate for
Sri D R Sridhara, Advocate )
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Kagg alipura Police Station
Reptd . by Public Prosecutor
High Court Comp lex
Beng aluru-560 001
2. Smt. Sang eetha
W/o Mani
Aged about 26 years
R/at Ravugodlu Villag e
Uttarahalli Hob li
Beng aluru South Taluk
:: 2 ::
PIN-560 082
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
R2 served - unrep resented)
This Criminal Appeal is filed und er Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
ord er d ated 03.03.2022 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in
Spl.C.C.No.70/2022 and etc.
IN CRL.A.NO.1044/2022
BETWEEN :
Deep ak @ Deep u
S/o Madaiah
Aged about 41 years
R/at Kanakapura Main Road
Somanahalli Gate
Pipeline, Somanahalli
Beng aluru - 560 060
...Appellant
(By Sri M.Krishnegowda, Advocate for
Smt. M.Asha and D R Sridhara, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Kagg alipura Police Station
Reptd . by Public Prosecutor
High Court Comp lex
Beng aluru-560 001
2. Smt. Sang eetha
W/o Mani
Aged about 26 years
R/at Ravugodlu Villag e
Uttarahalli Hob li
Beng aluru South Taluk
:: 3 ::
PIN-560 082
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
R2 served - unrep resented)
This Criminal Appeal is filed und er Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
ord er d ated 02.03.2022 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judg e, Bengaluru Rural District in
Spl.C.C.No.70/2022 and etc.
These Criminal Appeals coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellants' counsel and the learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State. Respondent No.2 has been served with
notice, but she has not entered appearance before
the court.
2. These two appeals are disposed of by
common order as they arise from Crime
No.244/2021 registered by the first respondent
police for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the
:: 4 ::
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The appellant in Crl.A.No.1043/2022 is
accused No.3 and the appellant in
Crl.A.No.1044/2022 is accused No.4 in
Spl.C.C.No.70/2022. The trial court by order dated
03.03.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.334/2022, dismissed the
application of accused No.3 under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., and likewise by order dated 02.03.2022 in
Crl.Misc.No.326/2022, dismissed the application of
accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
4. The allegations found in the report made
by second respondent show that on 27.10.2021,
one Mani, the husband of second respondent was
taken to the terrace of the house near Kalikamba
temple situated at Somanahalli, assaulted severely
on his face and legs with clubs and his tongue was
cut by a knife by accused No.1-Chandramouli. It is
alleged that when accused No.1 was cutting the
:: 5 ::
tongue, the other accused held the husband of
second respondent in their clutches to prevent him
from escaping. There are also allegations that the
injured was abused in the name of his caste. The
wound certificate is also produced. It shows
laceration over tongue, laceration over nose and
lower lip. So if the wound certificate is perused, it
cannot be said that the allegations found in the FIR
are bereft of truth. Though the doctor has
mentioned that the injuries are simple, the
allegation with regard to inflicting injuries to the
husband of second respondent are very serious.
Investigation might have been completed, but I do
not find a case for granting anticipatory bail. The
impugned orders are justifiable. Therefore appeals
are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv/-
