Mohammad Patel S/O Imam Patel Mali ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9202 Kant

                              1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200206/2021


Between:

Mohammad Patel
S/o Imam Patel Mali Patel,
Age: 27 Years, Occ: Private Work,
R/o Kasar Bhosaga, Tq: Jewargi,
Dist: Kalaburagi-585101.
                                                ... Appellant
(By Sri Anaveer Swadi, Advocate for
 Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka,
       Through (Jewargi) Nelogi P.S.
       Represented by Addl. SPP,
       High Court Building,
       Kalaburagi-585106.

2.     Mahesh S/o Babu Pawar,
       Age: 32 Years, Occ: Private Service,
       R/o Kuvempu Nagar,
       Kalaburagi-585102.
                                              ... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
 R2-served)
                              2




       This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 praying to set aside the impugned
order dated 19.05.2021 passed by II-Addl. Sessions Judge
at Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc.No.746/2021 consequently be
pleased to allow the above criminal appeal by issuing
direction to respondent No.1-Nelogi Police to release the
appellant on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.133/2020 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148,
323, 324, 326, 341, 307, 427, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act 1989,
pending on the file of II-Addl. Sessions Judge at
Kalaburagi, Dist. Kalaburagi.

      This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                        JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused No.5 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in the

event of his arrest in Crime No.133/2020 of Nelogi Police

Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 307, 427,

504, 506 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the

Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by

informant-Mahesh.

2. Heard Sri Anaveer Swadi, learned counsel for

Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused

the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.5 and he is

innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He

has been falsely implicated in the case without any basis.

The appellant is not named in the FIR. Only while filing

the charge sheet, he is arrayed as accused No.5. He is not

required for custodial interrogation. Specific overt-acts are

alleged only against accused Nos.1 to 4 and not against

accused No.5. Even though serious allegations are made

against accused Nos.1 to 4, accused No.4 is granted

conditional order of anticipatory bail by this Court. On

parity, the appellant is also entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail. Investigation is completed and charge

sheet is filed. Therefore, appellant is not required for

further investigation. The appellant is ready and willing to

abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by

this Court. Considering the nature of the offences, the

appellant is entitled for bail. Accordingly, he prays for

allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State opposing the appeal

submitted that serious allegations are made against the

appellant and other accused for having committed the

offences. Even though FIR was registered against accused

Nos.1 to 5 and others, specific overt-act is alleged against

each of the accused. After investigation, charge sheet

came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5. There is a

clear bar for grant of anticipatory bail under the special

enactment. The appellant is absconding since the date of

registration of case. Considering the nature of the offence,

the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

6. The allegations made against the appellant-

accused are of serious nature. Of-course the appellant is

not specifically named in the FIR. However, it is stated

that charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer.

Copy of the charge sheet is not produced before the Court.

It is contended that accused No.4 is granted bail. Copy of

the said order is also not produced before the Court. It is

stated that the appellant is absconding since the date of

registration of the case. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the

appellant may be required by the Investigating Officer for

investigation. Moreover, there is bar for grant of

anticipatory bail when the provisions of the special

enactment are invoked. No grounds are made out to

bypass the said bar contained in the special enactment.

Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not

entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*