Karnataka High Court
Sachin And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 July, 2022
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200130/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SACHIN
S/O. PARAMESHWAR @ PRABHU HANGARAGI,
AGE:23 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. TAJ SULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI
2. AMAR @ AMARNATH
S/O. CHANDRAKANTH HINDODDI,
AGE:23 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. TAJSULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 102
2. VITHAL
S/O. KASHIRAYA MADANKAR,
AGE:27 YEARS,
R/O. TAJ SULTANPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. GURURAJ V.HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A(2)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.06.2022 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE II ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.1136/2022
AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANTS / A-1 AND 2 AS
PER FIR ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.101/2022 OF SUB
URBAN POLICE STATION KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307,
504, 506, 427 R/W 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/S.
3(1)(R)(S) AND 2(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989, NOW PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under section 14-A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as
'SC/ST (POA) Act), challenging the order dated
21.06.2022, passed in Crl.Misc.No.1136/2022 filed under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') by II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, whereby the learned
Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition of the appellants.
2. The appellants were arraigned as accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.101/2022 of Sub Urban Police Station
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, r/w Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to
as 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 2(v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act.
3. A complaint came to be lodged by one
Vithal/complainant stating that about two months prior to
the alleged incident, complainant and his friend
Shivshankar Jamadar were standing near the Masjid of
their village, accused No.1/Sachin came there and started
to quarrel with his friend. The complainant intervened and
pacified the quarrel. In this background, accused persons
were having enmity and ill-will towards the complainant. It
is further alleged that on 28.05.2022, when the
complainant had been to attend the marriage function of
one Sheikh Amjada in their village, at that time, both the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 took the complainant to a
distance, abused him by taking his caste name and
assaulted him along with four to five persons with iron rod
and sticks on his head and face. At that time, after hearing
the screaming sound of complainant, his friends who were
standing away from him came there and rescued him. The
accused persons also threatened the complainant to take
away his life. Hence, a case came to be registered in
Cr.No.101/2022 against accused Nos.1 and 2. The
appellants were arrested on 01.06.2022 and now they are
in judicial custody. Further the accused have filed bail
petition before the Sessions Court, but the said case came
to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this
appeal is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the appellants have not committed any
offence. In fact appellant No.2 also belongs to SC/ST caste
and he cannot be charged under the provisions of SC/ST
(POA) Act. As per the instructions learned counsel
contends that, the complainant has not sustained any
grievous injuries and now the complainant is already
discharged from the hospital. Both the appellants are
permanent residents of Taj Sultanpur Village, Kalaburagi
and both of them are having movable and immovable
properties and they have no criminal antecedents. If they
are not granted bail, they will be put to great hardship and
their family members will also suffer a lot as they are only
depending on the accused persons. He also contends that
the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions that may
be imposed on them by the Court and ready to offer
surety. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Against this, learned HCGP for State opposed
for granting bail to the appellants. Learned HCGP contends
that the learned Sessions Judge after taking into
consideration the material on record found that the
appellants have not made out any case for their release on
bail and it is also observed by the Sessions Court that the
offences committed by them is a heinous offence and
consequently rejected the petition. Hence, learned HCGP
prays to reject the appeal as appellant Nos.1 and 2 are
not entitled for bail.
6. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule
and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting
the bail application, the Court will have to take into
consideration,
(1) the nature and seriousness of the
offence;
(2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to
accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of
the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses
being tampered with; and
(6) larger interest of public or the state and
similar other considerations, which arise
when a court is asked to admit the
accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.
7. Keeping in mind the said principles if the
material on record is perused, then it is evident that the
learned Sessions Judge is not justified in rejecting the bail.
Admittedly, the offences alleged against the appellants are
not either punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The injured/complainant is already discharged from the
hospital. The appellants are in judicial custody from
01.06.2022. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be
enlarged on bail. On the other hand, the apprehension of
the prosecution is that the appellants may abscond or
may tamper the prosecution witnesses and may not be
available for trial, can be meted out by imposing
reasonable conditions on appellants. Therefore, the
impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge needs to be
set aside and the appeal is to be allowed. Hence, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal filed under section 14A(2) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, is allowed.
2) The order dated 21.06.2022, passed by the
learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.No.1136/2022 is set aside.
3) The appellant No.1/Sachin and appellant
No.2/Amar @ Amarnath who are arraigned as accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.101/2022 of Sub Urban Police
Station, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, r/w
Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 2(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, pending on the file of II Addl.
District and Sessions Court, Kalaburagi, shall be enlarged
on regular bail, subject to the following conditions.
i) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with
a surety for the like sum, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall not try to
tamper and threaten the prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall furnish
proof of their residential addresses to the
Court and shall inform the
Court/Investigating Officer if there is any
change in the address.
iv) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall not
involve themselves in any criminal
activities and shall not commit similar
offences.
v) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall appear
before the Court on all hearing dates
unless their presence is exempted by the
trial Court.
vi) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall mark their
attendance before the SHO of Sub Urban
Police Station, Kalaburagi on every
Sunday, between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
for a period of two months or till filing of
the charge sheet whichever is earlier.
vii) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave
the jurisdiction of the trial Court without
prior permission of the trial Court.
In case if any of the condition is violated, the
prosecution is at liberty to move application for
cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
