Sharanagouda @ Sharanu S/O ... vs State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4857 Kant

                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200023 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SHARANAGOUDA @ SHARANU
S/O SIDDANNA KIRADALLI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O NAGANUR, TQ. SHORAPUR
DIST. YADGIRI
                                         ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. IRAPPA SHANKREPPA CHIMMALAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH KEMBHAVI POLICE STATION
       REPRESENTED BY
       ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107

2.     SMT. BASAMMA
       W/O KAMAPPA BANTANUR
       R/O NAGANUR, TQ. SHORAPUR
       DIST. YADGIRI - 585 201
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
    R2 - SERVED)
                             2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14-A OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN KEMBHAVI P.S. CRIME
NO.161/2021 REGISTERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND
OTHER ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT AND
ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 338 & 504 R/W SECTION 34 OF
IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS   JUDGE,     YADGIRI    BY  IMPOSING    ANY
CONDITIONS THAT THIS COURT DEEMS FIT.

     THIS  CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING   ON  FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Sri. Irappa Shankreppa Chimmalagi, learned counsel

for appellant and Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 have

appeared in-person.

2. Counsel for appellant is seeking to allow the

appeal and direct the respondent No.1 to enlarge the

appellant/accused No.3 on anticipatory bail in the event of

his arrest in connection with Crime No.161/2021 registered

by the Kembhavi Police Station against the appellant for

the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') and also

under Sections 338 & 504 R/W Section 34 of IPC.

3. Sri. Irappa Shankreppa Chimmalagi, learned

counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent

and he has not committed any offence, much less the

offence alleged against him. The appellant has been falsely

implicated in the aforesaid crime on false and baseless

allegations.

Next, he submitted that the respondent police

registered FIR against the appellant in a mechanical

manner and on the basis of vague and unsustainable

allegations. All the allegations as against the appellant are

baseless and there is laxity of clarity in the complaint.

A further submission is made that by looking into the

complaint it is very much clear that there is no allegation

against the appellant with regard to Atrocity Act. The only

allegation against the appellant is that he took the victim

Sharanappa to the spot where he wanted to work. Hence,

the appellant is entitle to enlarge on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel vehemently urged that the

ingredients of Sections 3 (1) (r) and (s) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act are not attracted as against the appellant.

However, the police authorities have mechanically

registered the FIR for the offences punishable under the

SC/ST (POA) Act.

Lastly, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed

and respondent No.1 may be directed to enlarge the

appellant/accused No.3 on anticipatory bail in the event of

his arrest.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has

opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Next, he submits that looking to the complaint

averments, there is a prima facie case against the

appellant for the offence punishable under Sections

3 (1) (r) and (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and other

offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

A further submission is made that there is a bar

under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act from

entertaining the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The

District and Sessions Judge considering all these aspects

has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail application and

the order does not require any interference.

It is also submitted that investigation is already

completed and charge sheet is now filed. The offence

alleged against the appellant is also under Section 304 (A)

of IPC. Accordingly, he submits that this is not a fit case to

grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal may be

dismissed.

5. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of

parties and perused the FIR, complaint and also the

impugned order.

6. The complaint is lodged by one Basamma W/o

Kamappa, the mother of deceased Sharanappa on

29.10.2021. It is stated that the deceased Sharanappa

died due to current shock and the appellant is responsible

for the death. It is also alleged that there is a caste abuse

by one Shrishaila Swamy. The complaint averments do not

depict that there is a caste abuse by the appellant.

I have perused the complaint with utmost care. As

could be seen from the complaint, there is no allegation of

caste abuse by the appellant.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in PRATHVI RAJ

CHAUHAN vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported

in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has held that if the complaint does

not make out prima-facie case for applicability of

provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the bar created

under Sections 18 and 18-A shall not apply. The said

aspect is contained in paragraph No.11, which is extracted

as under:-

"11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions".

Suffice it to notice that the investigation is completed

and the charge sheet has been filed. In the charge sheet

the appellant is shown as accused No.3 and he has been

accused of offences punishable under Sections 304(A), 504

R/w Section 34 of IPC. He has not been charged with

offence punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

As already noted above, the complaint does not

depict that there is a caste abuse by the appellant.

Therefore, the District and Sessions Judge has failed to

have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded

relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the order

passed by the District and Sessions Judge is unsustainable

in law.

The main objection of the prosecution is that if the

appellant is granted anticipatory bail, he will tamper the

prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right

by imposing some stringent conditions.

7. On facts and in all the circumstances of the

case and submission of counsel for the appellant, this

Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for setting

aside the impugned order and granting bail to the

appellant/accused No.3 subject to terms and conditions.

Hence, the Court passes the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. The order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in Crl.Misc.No.666/2021 is set aside insofar as appellant is concerned.

The appellant/accused No.3 shall be enlarged

on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with

Crime No.161/2021 registered by the Kembhavi Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections

3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and

Sections 338, 504 & 304 R/w Section 34 of IPC,

subject to the following conditions:-

1. The appellant shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency.

2. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence either directly or indirectly.

3. The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

The observations made herein are confined to the

disposal of this appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG