Sri. Channagouda Alias ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11544 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2022
                             BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100316/2022

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. CHANNAGOUDA @ CHANNABAS AVA
       S/O. YOGA PPA KORI
       AGE: 29 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURI ST.


2.     SRI. V ENKATESH
       S/O. NAGA PPA UPPAR
       AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURI ST.


       BOTH ARE R/ O. NA NDIHALLI,
       TQ. KARATAGI, DI ST. KOPPAL- 583231.
                                               ...A PPELLANTS

(BY SRI.B. C. JNA NAYYA SWAMI, AD VOCATE)



AND:


1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       (THROUGH KARAT AGI P.S .) ,
       REPRES ENTED BY ITS SPP,
       HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
                                    2




      BENCH AT DHARW AD.


2.    SRI. DYAVANNA
      S/O. HAVANNA,
      AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: LABOURER,
      R/O. NANDIHALLI ,
      TQ. KARATAGI, DI ST. KOPPAL- 583231.
                                                  ... RES PONDENTS


(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - S ERVED)



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UN DER SECTION 14A (2)
OF SC AND ST ( POA) ACT , SEEKING TO GRANT ANTI CIPATORY
BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDEN T POLICE TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL
IN   THE   EVENT   OF    THEIR    ARREST   IN   CRIME   NO.102/ 2022
REGISTERED IN KARATAGI POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323,
324, 354(A), 395, 295, 307, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF I PC
AND UNDER SECTI ONS 3(1)( r), 3(1) (s), 3( 2) (v-a) OF SC AND
ST   (POA)    ACT ,     INSOFAR    AS   THESE     A PPELLAN TS   ARE
CONCERN ED.



      THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
                                      3




                            JUDGMENT

challenging the order dated 21.06.2022 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.505/2022 by learned Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Koppal, whereunder anticipatory bail

petition filed by appellants in Crime No.102/2022 of

Karatagi Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 295, 307, 323,

324, 354(A), 395, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for

brevity) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)

of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC &

ST (POA) Act', for brevity), came to be rejected so far as

these appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1/State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2

has not chosen to appear either in-person or through

counsel.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, one

Dyavanna (respondent No.2) has filed the complaint

alleging that he is resident of Nandihalli village in

Karatagi Taluk and that on 21.05.2022 at about 8.30 p.m.

at Nandihalli village, appellants and other accused entered

into the colony of the complainant by forming an unlawful

assembly by holding deadly weapons like stones, clubs

etc., and assaulted the women and children who were in

their house and threw the utensils of their house outside

and also abused in filthy language. Appellants/accused

Nos.1 and 2 assaulted Shekarappa with club and iron rod

and snatched 2 tolas of gold chain from his neck and also

dragged Honnur by touching her body with an intention to

outrage her modesty and snatched her mangalsutra and

abused them touching their caste and torn their clothes.

In that incident 11 persons have sustained injuries whose

names are mentioned in the complaint. The said

complaint came to be registered in Crime No.102/2022 of

Karatagi Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The

appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR,

along with other accused filed Criminal Miscellaneous

No.505/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came

to be rejected so far these appellants are concerned by

order dated 21.06.2022 by learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Koppal and has been granted anticipatory

bail so far the other accused are concerned. The

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the said

order in the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that in the said incident total 69 accused and

there is no specific overt acts alleged against each of the

accused and the allegation is omnibus. It is his further

submission that there is a counter complaint by one

Hanumesh Timmareddy Ammannaru against these

appellants and other accused persons which is registered

in Crime No.103/2022 by Karatagi Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,307,

323, 324, 354(A), 395, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of

IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and

ST(POA) Act. It is his further submission that it is a

group clash between two groups and it is difficult to

ascertain overt act of each of the accused. Without

considering all these aspects, learned Sessions/Special

Judge has passed the impugned order which requires

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow

the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would contends that in the alleged incident nine

persons have sustained injuries out of them four have

sustained grievous injuries. It is his further submission

that there is a specific allegation against these

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint regarding

they abusing the complainant and Honnur touching their

caste and outraging her modesty. It is his further

submission that on seeing averments of the complaint, the

offences under the provisions of the SC and ST(POA) Act

clearly attracts and there is a bar under Section 18 of SC

and ST(POA) Act to entertain the petition under Section

438 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been considered by the

learned Sessions/Special Court in rejecting the

anticipatory bail petition of these appellants which does

not requires any interference by this Court. With this, he

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellants and learned High Court

Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the

averments of the complaint, FIR and the order passed by

learned Sessions/Special Judge.

7. Learned Sessions/Special Judge has granted

anticipatory bail to accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 8 to 11, 14, 15,

18 to 22, 24 to 27, 29 to 31, 33 to 35, 38, 40 to 44, 46 to

54, 56 to 60, 62, 63, 65 and 67 to 69 on the ground that

they are also belonging to caste which is coming under

SC/ST. The anticipatory bail petition of these

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be rejected on

the ground that they are no SC/ST members and they

abused the complainant and others by referring to their

case name. There is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail

under Section 18 of the SC and ST (POA) Act. The names

of these appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have been

specifically stated in the complaint saying that they have

assaulted Shekarappa with stick and iron rod and

snatched 2 tolas of gold chain from his neck and also

assaulted Honnur who came to rescue him and snatched

her mangal chain and abused them touching their caste

and torn the clothes. The said statement made in the

complaint is omnibus and there are no specific allegations

against each of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2.

There is a group clashed between one group consisting of

69 persons and another group consisting of 66 persons.

Therefore, under group clash one cannot ascertain which

person has assaulted to which person. Therefore on

looking to the entire averments of the complaint, at this

stage it cannot be said that it attracts the offences under

the SC and ST(POA) Act, as there is a omnibus allegations

against the appellants. When there is no prima facie case

against the appellants for the offences under the

provisions of SC and ST(POA) Act, they can be granted

anticipatory bail as the bar under Section 18 of SC and

ST(POA) Act is not attracted. The other accused who are

similarly placed to these appellants against whom similar

allegations have made, have been granted anticipatory

bail by learned Sessions/Special Judge. Therefore,

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are also entitled for grant

of anticipatory bail with conditions. Without considering

all these aspects, learned Sessions/Special Judge has

passed the impugned order which requires interference by

this Court. The main apprehension of the prosecution is

that if appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted

anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and

tamper the prosecution witnesses, can be met with by

imposing certain stringent conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and

submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that

there are valid grounds for setting aside the impugned

order and to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

21.06.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.505/2022

by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, is

set aside so far as appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are

concerned. Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to

be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime

No. 102/2022 of Karatagi Police Station, subject to the

following conditions:

i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii. The appellants shall remain present before the Police Station concerned on every Sunday

between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and mark their presence for a period of two months or till filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

iii. The appellants shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

iv. The appellants shall co-operate with the investigating officer and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.

v. The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

vi. The appellants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM