Devendrappa S/O Sattyappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7241 Kant

                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100213/2022

BETWEEN:

DEVENDRAPPA S/O SATTYAPPA KURAGODI
AGE: 28 YEARS OCC: POLICE DEPARTMENT,
R/O BIDARALLI, TALUK MUNDARGI,
DISTRICT GADAG-581117.
                                        ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V NAIK., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH MUNDARAGI P.S.
     R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, DHARWAD-580001.

2.    RAMESH S ROTTI,
      AGE: MAJOR, OCC: POLICE INSPECTOR,
      PIDCRE. BAGALKOT-587101.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASOORMATH, HCGP FOR R-1 AND
SRI.C.JAGADEESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A
(2) R/W U/SEC 438 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF REJECTION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL BY ITS
ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN CRL.MISC.NO.138/2022
IN CRIME NO.42/2022 REGISTERED BEFORE MUNDARGI
POLICE STATION TALUK MUNDARAGI DISTRICT GADAG FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER 198, 199, 420, 109 OF
                              2




IPC AND U/SEC 3(1) (q) OF SC/ST ACT OF PREVENSION OF
ATROCITIES AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND UNDER SECTION
5(A) 5(B) OF KARNATAKA SC/ST AND OTHER BC
(RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT ACT 1990) AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND GRANT THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1. AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                     JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Raja Raghavendra V.Naik, learned counsel

for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1 and Sri.C.Jagadeesh, learned counsel

on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant

being aggrieved by the rejection of bail in anticipation of

his arrest passed by the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Gadag in Crl.Misc.No.138/2022 dated 22.04.2022.

The appellant here in is the accused No.1 in the complaint

lodged by the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable

under 198, 199, 420, 109 of IPC and under Section 3(1)

(q) of SC/ST Act of Prevention of Atrocities Amendment

Act 2015 and under Section 5(A) 5(B) of Karnataka SC/ST

and other BC (Reservation of appointment Act 1990).

3. Brief facts of the case:-

It is a case of appellant that he is a law abiding

citizen and presently working as Police Constable at

Vijayapur Women Police Station. A case has been

registered against him by Department of Civil Rights

Enforcement Cell, Bagalkot wherein it is stated that he has

obtained the caste certificate of Schedule Caste (SC)

stating Hindu 'Bhovi' which comes under the Schedule

Caste (SC) category. It is also stated that the appellant

has obtained the caste certificate for the year 2013

pursuant to which he had applied for the post of Police

Constable at Tumkur District in which he got selected.

4. In the year 2015 the police department sent the

copy of Caste Certificate for verification for grant of

'Sindutva' and Deputy Commissioner, Gadag on

24.02.2020 as a Chairman of caste verification committee

passed an order that the caste of the appellant is Madder

and doesn't come under Schedule Caste (SC) category and

therefore the caste certificate of appellant came to be

withdrawn from the SC category and the Sindutva was

rejected. The appellant further stated that his paternal and

maternal relatives have obtained the similar Sindutva and

got caste certificate as Schedule Caste (SC) which has not

been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag and

thereby committed the error in passing the order.

5. It is a case of the prosecution that, one Ramesh

S.Rotti (PIDCRE), Bagalkot has filed a complaint against

the appellant and others before the Mundaragi Police

Station on 23.02.2022 for the offences as stated above.

Based on which, the Mundaragi P.S. registered a crime in

Crime No.42/2022 for the offences as stated above.

Apprehending arrest by said Mundaragi P.S. appellant filed

an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of

anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.138/2022 which came to be

rejected by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag

on 22.04.2022. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant

is before this Court seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C R/w Section 14A(2) of the

SC/ST Act.

6. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellant

that appellant is a Government employee and though he

had obtained the employment as a Police Constable in the

year 2015, he came to be removed from service and

pursuant to which he applied under general category in the

year 2017 and secured employment as a Police Constable

and he is presently working in Vijayapura Women's Police

Station. Further learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the offences alleged pertains to the misuse of caste

certificate and though not belonging to Scheduled Caste

(SC) category obtained the employment in the guise of

being a Schedule Caste (SC) is an offence punishable

under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and

also under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of

Appointment etc) Act, 1990 as mentioned here above and

also under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

However the learned counsel contended that he has

presently secured employment in the general category

therefore if he is prosecuted he will loose his employment.

Hence he requests this Court to take up the matter and

consider his application for the grant of bail under Section

438 of Cr.P.C.

7. Sri.C.Jagadeesh, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 vehemently contends that the appeal preferred by

the appellant is not maintainable as it is barred and hit by

the provisions of 18(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Therefore, the appellant cannot maintain this appeal

seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. or

under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel further contended that the initial

appointment of the appellant was on the basis of caste

certificate in which he had claimed to belong to Bhovi

community being a Schedule Caste (SC) category

therefore the criminal case initiated by the prosecution

under the relevant provisions of law as mentioned above is

correct and the appellant will have to face the trial. It is

the main contention of Sri. C.Jagadeesh, learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 that the present appeal is not

maintainable in view of the specific bar under Section 18A

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Arguments addressed

by learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 is

reiterated and canvassed by the learned High Court

Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties and having perused relevant

provisions of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act which reads as

under;

"18.A. No enquiry or approval required.

(1) For the purposes of this Act,-

(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.

(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court."

There is no ambiguity with regard to the above

provision of 18A(2) which clearly says that the provisions

of 438 of Cr.P.C will not apply to the case pertaining to any

provisions under the Act i.e., SC/ST Act of 1989.

9. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the

case and provisions of law, I am of the considered view

that the appeal preferred by the appellant seeking for

anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C would not be

maintainable as the appellant will have to approach the

correct forum of law for obtaining the necessary relief's in

accordance to law. However, learned counsel for the

appellant vehemently contends that in view of the fact that

appellant has secured fresh appointment by way of fresh

notification in the year 2017 after having been removed for

the alleged offences herein stated above and he is in no

more employment under the guise of the Schedule Caste

(SC) category as alleged in the complaint as submitted by

the learned counsel for the respondents.

10. In view of the same I deem it appropriate that the

appellant be given liberty to approach the appropriate

forum for seeking the necessary relief for grant of bail in

accordance to law. On such application being filed by the

learned counsel for appellant, the concerned Court dealing

with the matter shall dispose of the application

immediately on the objections filed by the State or the

contesting parties preferably on the same day of the

objections being filed and parties shall cooperate with the

disposal of the application.

The present appeal is not maintainable in view of the bar

under Section 18 A (2) of the SC/ST POA 1989.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE HDK