Karnataka High Court
Sri Santhosh vs The State on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.742 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SANTHOSH,
S/O. LATE DORAL ROYAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.75, MILLERS ROAD,
BENSON TOWN, NANDI DURGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 046.
2. ANTHONY,
S/O. LATE AROGYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.02, KODATHL,
SARJAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
3. GEORGE JOHN,
S/O. LATE IYPE JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT 511, MULLUR VILLAGE,
CARMELARAM POST,
SARJAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 035.
4. DR. TINNU GEORGE,
S/O. GEORGE JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT 511, MULLUR VILLAGE,
CARMELARAM POST,
SARJAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 035. ... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE]
2
AND
1. THE STATE,
REP. BY BELLANDUR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. NAGARAJU B.,
S/O. SHAMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR RAILWAY GATE,
SARJAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 035. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP., FOR R.1;
R.2 IS SERVED.]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 (A)(2)
OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL PETITION DATED
12.04.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.2955/2022 ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-71), IN CONNECTION WITH
CRIME NO.28/2022 OF BELLANDURU FOLICE STATION, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 504, 447 OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)( r ) AND 3(1)(g) OF SC AND ST (POA)
ACT AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER AND
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF/RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The appellants are before this Court in this appeal
filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in
Short SC/ST (POA) Act) praying to enlarge them on
anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered in
Crime No.28/2022 at Bellanduru Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(g) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections
506, 504 and 447 of IPC, by setting aside the impugned
order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting their
petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellants,
Learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the
material on record.
3. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has
been served but there is no representation.
4. In the complaint lodged by respondent No.2
namely Nagaraju B., it is averred that he is the owner of
a land measuring about 30 guntas situated in Survey
No.95/3, which was purchased by him from his relative
Thimmakka on 29.08.1996, as per the order passed by
Civil Court in O.S. No.178/1994. Appellant Nos.1 and 2,
the residents of Kodathi Village have been interfering
with the said land by burying the dead bodies, though
there is a separate burial ground situated near by. It is
further stated that the complainant belongs to Scheduled
Caste and when he questioned the appellants, he was
abused in filthy language and also threatened with dire
consequences.
5. The learned counsel for appellants has
contended that in fact, the land measuring about 2 acres
10 guntas in Survey No.95/3 of Kodathi Village was
granted in favour of the church as burial ground in the
year 2005. He contends, the complainant has made false
allegations that the dead bodies are being buried in his
land, on the other hand the land is earmarked as burial
ground. He contends that even if the entire allegations
in the complaint are taken at its face value then no
offence is made out which attract the provisions of SC/ST
(POA) Act. He would also contend that as per the RTC in
respect of Survey No.95 of Kodathi Village, Varthur,
Hobli, 2 acres 10 guntas of land has been reserved for
burial ground. He contends that the Tahsildar,
Bengaluru East Taluk on 13.06.2005 has passed an order
transferring the land for the purpose of burial ground.
The learned counsel for appellant has placed relevant
documents in support of his submission.
6. A plain reading of the complaint averments
does not disclose that there was any abusive words used
against the complainant insulting his caste. According to
the complainant, the land in question belong to him and
appellant Nos.1 and 2 who are named in the First
Information Report, have buried the dead bodies in the
said land and thus interfered with the enjoyment of his
rights. However, the same is a matter which has to be
established in due course. At this stage, it cannot be said
that the complainant is the absolute owner of the land in
question. Further, the learned High Court Government
Pleader has submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 who are
named in the First Information Report have been now
dropped and even the provisions under the SC/ST (POA)
Act, has also been dropped while preparing the charge-
sheet. Insofar as appellant Nos.3 and 4 are concerned
there are no specific allegations against them in the First
Information Report and therefore there is no impediment
to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the appellants in Crime
No.28/2022 of Bellanduru Police Station, they shall be
released subject to following conditions:
i. The accused/appellants shall appear
before the Investigating Officer within
a period of one week from the date of
this order and execute a personal
bond each in a sum of `50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a
surety for the likesum.
ii. They shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly
or indirectly.
iii. They shall cooperate with the
investigation of the case.
iv. They shall be regular in attending the
Court proceedings.
I.A. No.1/2022 filed for direction does not survive
for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/-
