Karnataka High Court
Devesh Gupta vs State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.847 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. DEVESH GUPTA
S/O RAJENDRA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1608 1ST STAGE,
2ND PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. RAMESH.S
S/O SIDDARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.105, KOTEHUNDI,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAYANAKERE POST,
MYSURU - 570 008.
3. SMT. BHARATHI
W/O MOOGAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O MALIYURU VILLAGE AND POST,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TQ,
MYSURU - 571 101. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA HARVI, ADVOCATE) (PH)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT PS,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 001.
2
2. MR. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.36, 8TH CROSS,
14TH MAIN, INDIRA COLONY,
ATTIGUPPE,
BENGALURU - 560 040. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R1,
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.04.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3487/2022 BY
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.91/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND U/S
354, 323, 504, 509 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime
No.91/2022 registered at Chandra Layout Police station,
Bengaluru City for offences punishable under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(V) of SC and ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC and ST (POA) Act) and
under Sections 354, 323, 504, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for appellants submit that he
is not pressing the appeal in respect of accused No.1 as the
said accused has been arrested and enlarged on bail by the
Sessions Court.
3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on
record.
4. Respondent No.2/ defacto complainant has been
served. A memo to that effect is filed by the learned HCGP.
However, there is no representation for respondent No.2.
5. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against
accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging that he had entered into a lease
agreement with accused No.1 in respect of his property by
receiving a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from him. Accused No.1
mentioned the amount as Rs.5,00,000/- instead of
Rs.4,50,000/- and when he enquired about the same he told
the complainant that if he fails to return the amount he has to
pay additional Rs.50,000/- towards interest. It is further
alleged that the accused retained the original documents
pertaining to the property and thereafter started insisting the
complainant to sell the property. On 14.03.2022 at about
10.00 p.m, accused No.1 came along with accused Nos.2 and
3 near his house and started abusing in filthy language
insulting his caste and asked him to vacate the property.
Further, he pushed the complainant and when his mother
came to his rescue, she was also abused and assaulted.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 instigated him and all the accused
threatened the complainant with dire consequences etc.,
6. Apprehending their arrest the appellants
approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected.
Hence, this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for appellants would contend
that the main allegation are against accused No.1 and he has
been arrested and already enlarged on bail by the Sessions
Court. He submits that a false case has been foisted against
the appellants. He submits that the appellant Nos.2 and 3
also belong to Scheduled Caste and therefore the provisions
under SC and ST (POA) Act is not attracted against them. He
submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint and the learned Sessions Judge without properly
appreciating all these aspects has erroneously rejected the
prayer seeking anticipatory bail.
8. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that
there are prima facie allegations against all the accused which
attracts the provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act and therefore
in view of the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the said Act,
the appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. He
submits that if any relief is granted to the appellants, there
are chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses and also
the accused not cooperating with the investigation. He
therefore seeks to reject the appeal.
9. The incident has taken place on 14.03.2022.
Complaint is lodged after 15 days ie., on 29.03.2022. On a
perusal of the complainant averments, it reveals that the
main allegations are against accused No.1. It is alleged that
he has abused and insulted the complainant taking the name
of his caste etc., It is also alleged that the said accused has
assaulted the complainant and his mother, who tried to
intervene. It is alleged that even accused Nos.2 and 3
accompanied accused No.1 on the night of 14.03.2022 and
they came near the house of complainant and instigated
accused No.1 to commit the offence.
10. There are no specific allegation against accused
Nos.2 and 3 that they have used any abusive words against
the complainant or his mother insulting their caste. From a
reading of the complaint, it is clear that the dispute is
between accused No.1 and the complainant. Further, the
learned counsel appearing for appellant Nos.2 and 3 has
produced caste certificate in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3
to show that even they are the members of Scheduled Caste.
11. Considering the entire material on record and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Nos.2
and 3 have made out sufficient ground to allow the appeal
and to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is liable
to be set aside. Accordingly, the following,
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The order dated 18.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.
No.3487/2022 on the file of the Court of LXX Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru,
rejecting the prayer of appellant Nos.2 and 3/ accused Nos.2
and 3 for anticipatory bail is hereby set aside.
Appellant Nos.2 and 3/ accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime
No.91/2022 of Chandra Layout Police Station shall be
released in the event of their arrest, subject to following
conditions:
1) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before
the Investigation Officer within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
2) They shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) each with two sureties for
like-sum.
3) They shall furnish their address proof and
shall inform the I.O/ Court, if there is
change in the address.
4) They shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
5) They shall cooperate with the
investigation.
6) They shall appear before the trial Court on
all dates of hearing, without fail.
The appeal in respect of appellant No.1/ accused No.1 is
dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LL
