Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vijaykumar vs State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.803 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VIJAYKUMAR
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR T R
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
S/O. SIDDARAMAYYA IN THE COMPLAINT)
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SMT. RANI VIJAYKUMAR
W/O. VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.5
OPP.POLICE STATION,
KEMPEGOWDANAGAR, GAVIPURAM
CIRCLE, GAVIPURAM GUTTAHALLAI
BENGALURU - 560 019.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GANESH, N.I., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VIJETHA R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GIRINAGAR POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT.MANJULA
W/O S.PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/OF NO.206, 1ST MAIN,
2
4TH CROSS, AVALAHALLI
MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA HCGP FOR R-1-STATE;
SRI.VASANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(2)(a) SC/ST (POA) 1989 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
SIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED BY LXX
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.2929/2022
(CRIME NO.67/2022) AND THEREBY GRANT ANTICIPATORY
BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS IN CRIME NO.67/2022
REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 (1) (g), 3 (1)
(v), 3(1) (viii), 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), OF THE SC & ST (POA) ACT,
1989 AND FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
447, 426, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred to set aside the order dated
07.04.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru in
Crl.Misc.No.2929/2022 and consequently to enlarge the
appellants on anticipatory bail.
2. Appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.67/2022 registered by Girinagar Police, Bengaluru,
for offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(g), 3 (1)(v),
3(1)(viii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in
short 'SC & ST (POA) Act'), and Sections 447, 426, 504,
506 R/W 34 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellants,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. It is alleged that when respondent No.2's
husband wanted to start construction work in their
property bearing No.24, measuring 97.28 sq.mtrs,
situated at Srinivasanagar, BSK 2nd stage, BBMP ward
No.162, Girinagar, Bengaluru, after demolishing the
existing shed, the appellants trespassed into the said
property and prevented them from putting up
construction, threatened and abused respondent No.2
and her husband using filthy language taking the name
of their caste as "ºÉüÉÆÃzÀÄ CxÀð DUÉÆÃ®é ºÉÆ®AiÀÄ, ªÀiÁ¢UÀ ªÀÄÄAqɪÀé,
ªÀÄvÉÛ F PÀqÉ §AzÀgÉ PÉÆ¯É DV ºÉÆÃVÛgÁ".
5. It is stated by respondent No.2 that they
belong to scheduled caste and appellants belong to
Lingayath community and knowing very well about their
caste, accused have intentionally abused insulting her
caste. It is further alleged that inspite of lodging
complaint to the Police, no action was taken and
therefore she filed a private complaint.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed
statement of objections. He has vehemently contended
that the offence alleged against the appellants attracts
the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and
therefore in view of bar under Section 18 of the said Act,
appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
contended that investigation is still under progress and
therefore, if appellants are granted bail they may
interfere with the investigation. He submits that after
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the
prayer seeking anticipatory bail.
8. Learned counsel for appellants has drawn the
attention of the Court to the complaint dated 25.10.2021
filed before the police by husband of respondent No.2.
The said complaint is lodged on the very same day on
which the accused are said to have trespassed into the
property of the complainant and abused both
complainant and her husband in filthy language insulting
their caste etc. However, perusal of the said complaint
does not even remotedly indicate that any such incident
is said to have taken place on that day. In the said
complaint it is alleged that appellant No.2 was interfering
in the property claiming to be the owner of the said
property. For the said complaint, the police issued an
endorsement stating that the dispute is purely of civil in
nature and therefore, they should approach the Civil
Court.
9. Learned counsel for appellants has also
submitted that a suit has been filed by appellant No.2
against respondent No.2 and her husband in
O.S.No.5945/2021 even prior to lodging of the present
complaint. He has produced a copy of the order passed
by the Civil Court granting temporary injunction in
respect of the property in question.
10. The learned counsel for appellants has
contended that in fact the property claimed by
respondent No.2 belongs to the appellants and there is
identification dispute with regard to the actual property,
which has to be established in the civil suit which is now
pending.
11. Having perused the entire material on record,
it appears that there is a civil dispute between the
parties. The alleged incident of abusing respondent No.2
and her husband took place on 25.10.2021. A private
complaint came to be filed in this connection which was
referred to police for investigation and the police have
registered a case on 21.02.2022 and thereafter a case
was registered against appellant No.1 and 2 on
10.03.2022. As already observed on the very same day
of the alleged incident a complaint was lodged to the
police wherein there is no allegation of any abusive
words used against the complainant or her husband. In
that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is a
prima facie case against the appellants to deny them the
benefit of anticipatory bail. The allegations have to be
proved in due course. Hence, the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge rejecting the petition filed under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the following
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the
Court of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in
Crl.Misc.No.2929/2022 is set aside.
The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.67/2022 of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru
are directed to be released in the event of their
arrest, subject to following conditions:
i. Appellants shall appear before the
Investigation Officer within a period of ten
days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and shall execute a personal bond
in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each with a surety for
likesum.
ii. Appellants shall cooperate with
investigation, and make themselves
available for the purpose of investigation
whenever required.
iii. Appellants shall furnish proof of
their correct residential address and shall
inform the I.O./Court, if there is any change
in the address.
iv. Appellants shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence / witnesses in any
manner.
v. Appellants shall be regular in
attending the Court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gpg/HB
