Karnataka High Court
Parashuram S/O Yallappa Chilzari vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27 t h DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100302/2022
BETWEEN:
1 . PARASHURAM
S/O YALLA PPA CHILZARI
AGE.33 YEARS ,
OCC.AGRI CULT URE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG- 582114
2 . SHIVAPPA S/O MA LLAPPA CHILZARI
AGE.29 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
3 . PRASHANT S/ O MA LLAPPA CHILZARI
AGE.26 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
4 . SUNIL S/ O MALLAPPA CHILZARI
AGE.24 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
5 . KALAKAPPA S/O Y ALLAPPA CHILZARI
AGE.38 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
6 . SHARANAPPA S/O YALLAPPA CHILZA RI
AGE.31 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
2
TQ.GAJENDRA GAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
7 . YALLAPPA S/ O KALAKAPPA CHI LZARI
AGE.70 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
8 . MALLAPPA S/ O KA LAKAPPA CHILZARI
AGE.65 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJENDRA GAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
9 . NEELAPPA S/O KALAKAPPA CHI LZARI
AGE.48 YEARS , OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
10 . NEELAVVA W/ O N EELAPPA CHILZA RI
AGE.45 YEARS , OCC.HOUSEHOLD W ORK,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
11 . NINGAVVA W/O YALLAPPA CHILZARI
AGE.46 YEARS , OCC.HOUSEHOLDWORK,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJENDRA GAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
12 . KALPANA W/ O S HA RANAPPA CHI LZARI
AGE.25 YEARS , OCC.HOUSEHOLDWORK,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJENDRA GAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
13 . KAVERI W/O PARA SAPPA CHI LZARI
AGE.26 YEARS , OCC.HOUSEHOLDWORK,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJENDRA GAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
14 . SUDHA W/ O SHIVA NAND CHILZARI
AGE.22 YEARS , OCC.HOUSEHOLDWORK,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJENDRA GAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
3
15 . JAYASHREE W/ O N EELA PPA CHI LZARI
AGE.22 YEARS , OCC.HOUSEHOLDWORK,
R/O KALAKA LESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD , DIST .GADAG 582114
...A PPELLANTS
(BY SRI. J.S . SHET TY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GAJENDRA GAD POLI CE STATION A UTHORITIES ,
REPRES ENTED BY THE
STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUT OR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580011
2 . SMT. KAMALAVVA SOMAPPA RATHOD
AGE- 60 YEARS ,
R/O. KALAKALESHWAR,
TQ.GAJ ENDRAGAD ,
DIST.GADAG- 582114.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP FOR RES PONDENT NO.1.
SRI. V .P. VADAVI, ADV. F OR RESPON DENT NO.2.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A( 2) OF SC
AND ST (POA) A CT 1989, SEEKIN G TO THAT THE ORDER
DATED 30.05.2022, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GA DAG, IN CRIMINAL
MISC.NO.186/ 2002, MAY BE S ET ASIDE AND THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 11 AND 13 TO 16 MAY
KINDLY BE ENLARGED ON ANTICIPA TORY BAIL IN THE EVENT
OF THEIR ARREST IN GAJENDRAGAD P.S . CRIME NO.73/2022,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147,
148, 109, 307, 323, 324, 354, 354(a) , 354(b) , 355, 504,
506, 149 OF IPC AND 3(1) ( r), 3(1)(s) , 3( 2)( v/ a) OF
SCHEDULED CA STES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, BY ALLOWIN G THIS
APPEAL.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.1 to 11 and 13 to 16 have filed this
appeal challenging the order dated 30.05.2022
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.186/2022 by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Gadag (hereinafter referred to as 'Special court', for
short), whereunder the petition filed by the
appellants under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in
Gajendragad Police Station Crime No.73/2022
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 109, 307, 323, 324, 354, 354A,
354B, 355, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of
The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the
'IPC', for brevity) and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989
(hereinafter revered to as the 'SC & ST Act', for
short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant and the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on
07.05.2022 at 8:00 am, the complainant and her
daughter were on their way to their land for work.
In order to raise a quarrel, accused Nos.1 to 4 used
to pass urine in front of them, raised quarrel, abused
the complainant and her daughter in filthy language
and insulted them by abusing on their caste,
assaulted the complainant, disrobed her and
attempted to murder her by strangulation. At that
time, accused Nos.5 to 16 joined accused Nos.1 to 4.
The said complaint came to be registered in Crime
No.73/2022 for the aforesaid offences in
Gajendragad Police Station. The appellants
apprehending their arrest had filed
Crl.Misc.No.186/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and
the same came to be rejected by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by
order dated 30.05.2022. The appellants have
challenged the said order in the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that there is no prima facie case against the
appellants for the offences alleged against them and
the complainant and others have misused the
provisions of the SC & ST Act. It is his further
contention that appellant No.3-Prasant son of
Mallappa Chilzari has also filed a complaint against
Somappa Ramachandrapa Rathod and 7 others
including Kamalavva Somappa Rathod, who is the
complainant in Crime No.73/2022. It is his further
submission that, Smt. Bhimavva Pawar wife of
Nandish had filed a complaint which is registered in
Crime No.15/2018 against Kirti Pratapshinha
Ghorphade and 5 others and they are in the habit of
filing such complaints and in that complaint, the
police have filed 'B' report which has been accepted
by the Court on the submission of the complianant.
He further submitted that the appellants could not
produce the documents pertaining to the said aspect
while considering their petitions seeking anticipatory
bail and prays for remanding the matter with liberty
to produce the said documents before the Special
court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant submits that the Special Court
taking into consideration that there is prima facie
case against the appellants and taking into
consideration the bar under Section 18 and 18A of
SC & ST Act, has rightly rejected the prayer of the
appellants seeking anticipatory bail and there are no
grounds to interfere with the order passed by the
Special court.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
the learned Government Pleader, the court has
perused the documents.
8. The Special Court, based on the material
produced by the appellants/petitioners, held that
there is prima facie case against the petitioners and
case attracts provisions of SC & ST Act and has also
taken into consideration the bar contained under
Section 18 of the SC & ST Act.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that, if the documents produced in this appeal
pertaining to Crime Nos.75/2022, 93/2020, 94/2020
and 15/2018, he can able to establish that there is
no prima facie case against the appellants. The said
documents were not produced before the Special
Court at the time of passing the impugned order.
Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the matter requires to
be remanded giving opportunity to the appellants to
produce the above said documents and directing the
Special Court to consider the same and pass orders
afresh on the petition filed by the appellants seeking
anticipatory bail after giving an opportunity to the
respondent No.2 and the State.
Under the circumstances, the following order.
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
impugned order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.186/2022 dated 30.05.2022 by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gagag, is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the Special
Court with a direction to consider
Crl.Misc.No.186/2022 afresh giving opportunity to
the appellants to produce the above referred
documents after giving an opportunity to the
complainant and the State to address oral arguments
and produce the documents.
Respondent No.2 or her counsel is directed to
appear before the Special Court on 06.08.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kmv
