Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanaswamy M vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.581 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY M.,
S/O. LATE GUDDATHAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.239, 5TH CROSS,
SANJEEVINI NAGAR,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS,
BANGALORE NORTH, VISWANEEDAM,
BANGALORE - 560 091. ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE]
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
DODDABALLAPUR,
BENGALURU RURAL DIST.,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. H.K. RAVIKUMAR,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICER,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R.1/STATE;
SRI. C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2]
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO GRANT AN ANTICIPATORY BAIL
BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS/POLICE TO RELEASE THE
APPELLANT IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.26/2022
REGISTERED AT FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE
MADE P/U/S 5(A) AND 5(B) OF THE KARNATAKA SC/ST AND
OTHER B.C. (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENTS, ETC.) ACT 1990
AND SECTION 3(1)(q) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE,
2014 SECTIONS 196, 198 AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the
learned counsel for respondents.
2. Appellant is arraigned as accused No.3 in
Crime No.26/2022 of Doddaballapura Town Police Station
registered for offences punishable under Sections 5(A),
5(b) of The Karnataka SC/ST and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990,
Section 3(1)(q) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance,
2014 and Section 198, 196 and 420 of IPC.
3. The appellant preferred a petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in Criminal Misc.No.558/2022
before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, which
was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2022.
4. Appellant while working as Revenue Inspector
is alleged to have colluded with other accused persons
and said to be instrumental in issuing a false caste
certificate in favour of accused No.1. It is alleged that
though accused No.1 belong to Vokkaliga Community, he
obtained a caste certificate from the Tahsildar i.e.,
accused No.2 on 14.08.2013, claiming to be Bhovi Caste
which is notified as scheduled caste.
5. The complaint is lodged by the Police
Inspector, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement. On
the basis of which the aforementioned crime was
registered against accused Nos.1 to 4.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that the caste certificate dated
14.08.2013 issued by the Tahsildar in favour of accused
No.1 was annulled by the District Caste Verification
Committee on 27.08.2020 after an enquiry and the said
order has not been challenged by accused No.1 and
therefore the said order has become final. He therefore,
contends that there is a prima facie case against the
appellant herein, who was working as a Revenue
Inspector. It is his contention that the appellant has
given a false report to the Tahsildar on the basis of which
the caste certificate was issued. He submits that in view
of prima facie case made out against the appellant, he is
not entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. The learned counsel appearing for appellant
contends that the caste certificate issued to accused
No.1 is based on a proper enquiry and it was issued on
14.08.2013. The husband of accused No.1 belong to
scheduled caste and therefore, it cannot be said that
there was any collusion on the part of the appellant and
he has given a false report. He submits that the order
passed by the District Caste Verification Committee is
without notice to the appellant and therefore, he cannot
be held responsible. He submits that there is no
sufficient material against the appellant to show that he
has colluded with other accused persons. He therefore
contends that the trial Court without taking into
consideration all these aspects has erroneously rejected
the prayer seeking anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
8. The case of the prosecution is that accused
No.1 though belong to Vokkaliga Community, by making
false representation obtained a caste certificate claiming
to be a member of scheduled caste on 14.08.2013 which
later came to be cancelled by the District Caste
Verification Committee.
9. At this stage there is no sufficient material to
show that the appellant who was working as a Revenue
Inspector also colluded with other accused persons in
issuing the caste certificate. The prosecution has to
establish in due course that the appellant knowing fully
well that accused No.1 is not a member of scheduled
caste has given a false report to the Tahsildar and he is
instrumental in issuing a fake caste certificate. In the
absence of cogent material at this stage, it cannot be
said that there is a prima facie case made out against
the appellant. In that view of the matter, the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the
prayer of the appellant seeking anticipatory bail cannot
be sustained. Accordingly, the following
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The judgment dated 23.03.2022 passed in Criminal
Misc.No.558/2022 by the Court of II Additional District
and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru is set aside.
Appellant/accused No.3 shall be released in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.26/2022 of
Doddaballapura Town Police Station, subject to following
conditions:
i. Appellant shall appear before the
Investigation Officer within a period of ten
days from the date of receipt of copy of
this order and shall execute a personal
bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only) with two sureties for
likesum.
ii. He shall furnish his address proof and
shall inform the Court/Investigating
Officer, if there is change in address.
iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses/evidence either directly or
indirectly.
iv. He shall be available for the purpose of
investigation as and when required and
shall cooperate with the investigation of
the case.
v. He shall appear before the trial Court on
all dates of hearing without fail.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB/-
