Jagadish K R vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11373 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16 T H DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
Jag ad ish K.R.
S/o Ramakrishnappa K.P.
Aged about 44 years
R/at Kagg alahalli Village and Post
Harohalli Hob li
Kanakapura Taluk
Ramanag ara District-562112.
                                         ...Appellant
(By Sri Kemp araju, Advocate)

AND:
1.   The State of Karnataka
     By Harohalli Police
     Rep. by State Public Prosecuter
     Hig h Court of Karnataka
     Beng aluru-560001.

2.   Kumar K.
     S/o Krishnamurthy
     Aged about 39 years
     No.9, Appaji Complex
     Kumb alagodu Main Road
     Thathag uni
     Uttarahalli Hob ali
     Bang alore South Taluk
     Pin Code-560062.
                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
 R2 - served)
                              :: 2 ::


     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the ord er of
rejection of the bail p assed in Crl.Misc.No.453/2022
on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanag ara      filed   by    the   appellant   seeking
anticip atory   b ail   in   connection    with    Crime
No.156/2022 for the offence punishable under section
3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST act and section 323, 324, 504
read with section 149 of IPC consequently allow the
application and g rant anticip atory bail.


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

                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent

No.2 is absent inspite of service on notice on him

through the investigating officer.

2. This appeal is filed under Section

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

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act'

for short), challenging the order dated 20.06.2022

in Crl.Misc.No.453/2022, rejecting the appellant's

application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for

anticipatory bail in connection with Crime :: 3 ::

No.156/2022 registered by the Harohalli police

station for the offences punishable under Sections

324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of

IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST

Act.

3. FIR was registered at the instance of the

second respondent, who stated that he married

Sukanya K R i.e., accused No.6 belonging to

Vokkaliga caste and they lived happily for three

months. Thereafter some of the members of the

family of his wife borrowed Rs.14,00,000/- from

him. When the second respondent sought return

of the money, the wife left her company and went

to her parents' house. On 14.05.2022 at 7.45pm,

he went to the house of his parents' in-law and

sought return of the money that he had given to

them, but at that time, his mother-in-law abused

him in vulgar language and sprinkled chilli powder

at his eyes, the second respondent's brother-in-

:: 4 ::

law i.e., the appellant herein took the name of his

caste and abused and assaulted with a club and

thereby he sustained bleeding injuries. When he

fell down, the appellant again assaulted him.

These are the allegations found in the first

information report lodged on 15.05.2022.

4. It is the argument of Sri Kemparaju,

learned counsel for the appellant that second

respondent actually does not belong to scheduled

caste, he belongs to Vokkaliga caste and when he

lodged FIR against the appellant and other

accused, he gave false information to the police

that he belonged to scheduled caste. In this

connection, the second respondent's wife made a

complaint to Civil Rights Enforcement Cell ('CREC'

for short) on 25.07.2022 for investigation. The

complaint made by the wife to the CREC clearly

discloses that the second respondent fell down and

sustained injuries. The allegations found in the :: 5 ::

FIR that the appellant abused in the name of his

caste are false. In this view the appellant is

entitled to anticipatory bail. He also submits that

accused 1, 3 and 6 have been admitted to

anticipatory bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

produces a letter written by the Tahsildar,

Bengaluru South Taluk to Deputy Superintendent

of Police stating that the second respondent's

caste is Adi Karnataka i.e., Scheduled Caste and

therefore it is his argument that second

respondent belongs to scheduled caste. In this

view, he submits that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act

is applicable for denying anticipatory bail.

6. Therefore it is clear from the arguments

that there is a dispute with regard to actual caste

of the second respondent. The wife of the second

respondent in her complaint addressed to the

CREC has clearly stated that her husband belonged :: 6 ::

to Vokkaliga caste (Gangatgal Gowda). But in the

FIR, the second respondent has given his caste as

scheduled caste. Ofcourse, the letter written by

the Tahsildar indicates that second respondent's

caste is a scheduled caste, however, the caste

factor is to be proved before the court. That apart,

the entire quarrel appears to have taken place in

relation to a monetary transaction. The other

accused have been admitted to anticipatory bail.

In this view the bar contained under Section 18 of

the SC/ST Act cannot be applied. There was no

impediment for the trial court to grant anticipatory

bail to the appellant. Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed .

The ord er d ated 20.06.2022 p assed in Crl.Misc.453/2022 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is set aside.

In the event of arrest of the ap pellant by the respond ent police in connection with :: 7 ::

Crime No.156/2022, he shall be released on bail subject to his 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 ellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

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

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

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

(iv) He shall mark his attend ance before the jurisdictional police station once in a fortnight p referably on a Sund ay between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till completion of the investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-