Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavaraj S/O Sangappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100247 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O. SANGAPPA BISEROTTI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING IN JUDICIAL DEPT.,
R/O. CHIKKAMYGERI VILLAGE,
TQ. YEBLBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL - 583236.
.....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. S. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
(THROUGH YELBURGA P.S.)
2. SRI. MUDAKAPPA
S/O. HUCHAPPA HARIJANA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. CHIKKAMYGERI VILLAGE,
TQ. YEBLBURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL-583236.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC AND ST
ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL
(REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.70/2022 BY YELBURGA P.S. KOPPAL DIST.,
FOR AN OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE SCHEDULED
CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT BILL 2015 AND SECTION 506, 504, 323 READ WITH 34 OF
IPC AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL PENDING
INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 under
Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC
and ST Act', for short) for setting aside the order of rejection of
anticipatory bail passed by the Principle District and Sessions
Judge, Koppal in Criminal Miscellaneous No.346/2022.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant-accused No.1, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Notice issued to respondent
No.2 is served and he has remained unrepresented.
3. The case of the appellant/accused No.1 is that on the
complaint of one Mudakappa, the Yelburga Police registered the
case in Crime No.70/2022 for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST
(POA) Act.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
there is no prima facie case made against the appellant for
attracting any of the provision under Section SC and ST Act. The
complainant himself went to the place of the accused and picked up
quarrel and the counter case also registered against this
complainant. The alleged offences are not at all made out by the
prosecution. The allegations goes against accused No.1 is that he is
a public servant and Court employee. The appellant is ready to
abide by any conditions hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader has
seriously objected the appeal and contended that there is a prima
facie case made against the appellant for having committing the
offences by abusing in filthy language in the public by touching the
caste and assaulted and threatened the complainant with dire
consequences. There is a bar under Section 18 and 18A of the SC
and ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail. The appellant is require for
custodial interrogation. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments of both counsel and
perused the records.
7. On perusal of records it reveals that there was quarrel
between accused No.2 and this complainant and the same was
brought to the notice of this appellant by accused No.2. The family
of the complainant already filed a complaint against the appellant
and his family members. Therefore there was an enmity between
them. On that background, on 20.04.2022 at about 8.30 p.m.
when the complainant went to see Mallesh who is the friend of this
appellant, under that this appellant and accused Nos.2 and 3 have
said to be abused them in filthy language by taking the caste and
insulted them in a public view. There also some persons came and
rescued the complainant. Inspite of the same, they abused in filthy
language by taking their caste and threatened with dire
consequences. After registering the case, the Police arrested the
appellant. The appellant approached before the Sessions Judge for
grant of anticipatory bail in Crl. Misc. No.346/2022, which came to
be rejected, hence the appellant is before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
there is no ingredients to attract Section 3 or under the provisions
of SC and ST (POA) Act. In the complaint it is clearly mentioned
the accused being a Court employee abused the complainant in
filthy language by taking the caste and insulted him in public view
and in public place. That apart on the very next day, this appellant
through his sister filed a complaint to the Police, which is also
registered by the Police in Crime No.70/2022 where she stated that
this appellant said to be came to the house and assaulted her and
her brother. The accused No.1 did not lodged any complaint to the
Police, even though there was quarrel between them, but after
registering the case against him very next day in order to counter
as a counter blast. The appellant sent his sister and lodged a
complaint against the complainant others.
9. The appellant said to be an Court employee working at
Yelburga Court. The case and counter case and the incident is
admitted one. The offence is very serious one taking the caste in
public and abusing in filthy language even the appellant is being a
Court employee.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the case and counter case for the alleged offences there is a bar
under Section 18 and 18A of the SC and ST Act for granting
anticipatory bail. Therefore, I am of the view that the
appellant/accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
