Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Gundappa S/O Basanna Sajjan on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawazpresided Bymnj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100478/2021
BETWEEN:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
RURAL POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE,
THROUGH THE ADD.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH-580001
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)
AND:
1. GUNDAPPA S/O BASANNA SAJJAN
AGE. 60 YEARS,
2. BASAVARAJA AMARAPPA SAJJAN
S/O AMARAPPA SAJJAN
AGE. 33 YEARS,
3. SANTOSH S/O AMARAPPA SAJJAN
AGE. 29 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. WARD NO.1
JAVALAGERA VILLAGE
TQ. SINDANUR-584128
DIST. RAICHUR
2
4. SAMANTHA HALEDEMATA S/O LATE VEERAYYA
M.P.PRAKASH NAGAR,
SIDDESHWARA BADAVANE
HOSAPETE
VIJAY NAGAR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14 A(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN CRL.MISC.PETITION NO.302/2021, PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BALLARI AND
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2021 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BALLARI IN
CRL.MISC.PETITION NO.302/2021 AND CANCEL THE
ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. TO THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal under
Section 14-(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
seeking to set aside the order dated 24.06.2021
passed by the learned I Addl. District and Special
Judge, Ballari, in Crl.MP. No.302/2021, whereby
the learned Sessions Judge, allowed the petition
filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned High Court
Government Pleader for appellant/State and
perused the material on record.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 are arraigned as
accused Nos.2 to 4 in Cr.No.29/2021 of Hospete
rural police station registered for offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 342,
363, 355, 307, 364 (A), 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(s),
3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The complaint is lodged by respondent
No.4. The averments in the complaint reveal that
there was a financial transaction between the
complainant and accused No.1 and in this regard,
accused No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.8/2019 on the
file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hosapete. He was
pressurizing the complainant to settle the matter.
On 14.04.2021 at about 11.30 a.m., accused No.1
came to the house of complainant along with four
other accused persons and took the complainant to
meet a lawyer. Thereafter, he was kidnapped and
taken near Ingalagi road, wherein they tied his
hands and assaulted him with a slipper. The said
incident was captured in their mobile phone. They
threatened him saying that if he did not agree for
a compromise, they will make the video viral in
social media and defame his reputation. Further,
accused No.1 took complainant's signature on a
blank white paper and also got transferred a sum
of Rs.75,000/- through Phone Pe and took the
photographs pertaining to his Aadhar card, Pan
card and left him near Hampi University.
5. It is the contention of learned High
Court Government Pleader that there are specific
allegations in the complaint which attracts the
provisions of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore, the
accused were not entitled for anticipatory bail, as
there is a specific bar under Section 18 and 18A of
the said Act. He has contended that there is a
prima facie case made out against the accused
persons and the matter was still under
investigation and therefore, the learned Sessions
Judge was not justified in enlarging the
respondents 1 to 3 on anticipatory bail. Hence, he
seeks to set aside the impugned order and cancel
the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 to
3/accused Nos.2 to 4.
6. I have perused the reasons assigned by
the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions
Judge has taken into consideration the financial
dispute existing between the complainant and
accused No.1 and the original suit pending before
the Civil Court, filed by accused No.1. Learned
Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration
the contention of the accused that the complainant
belongs to Jangama in Veerashaiva community and
does not belong to Beda Jangama caste, which was
not controverted by the prosecution in its
statement of objections. Further, in the entire
complaint, it is not alleged that accused persons
have abused the complainant taking the name of
his caste or insulted him referring to his caste
name. It is also relevant to see that, the incident
has not taken place only on the ground that the
complainant belong to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe, on the other hand, admittedly
there was a civil dispute existing between the
parties and in that connection, the accused are
alleged to have committed the offence. Insofar as
the offences alleged to have committed under the
Penal Code are concerned, the allegations are that
complainant was assaulted with chappal etc.,
However, admittedly the complainant has not
sustained any injuries and it is not stated in the
complaint that he took treatment in the hospital.
Learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petition
by imposing several conditions and it is not the
case of prosecution that any of those conditions
have been violated. Compelling and overwhelming
reasons are necessary to cancel the bail once
granted. No sufficient grounds are made out in
the case on hand. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
Jm/-
