Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Pandurang Kokale vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100211 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. BASAVARAJ S/O. PANDURANG KOKALE
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YAKKANCHI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 586 114.
2. UMESH @ PINTU S/O. BALU KOKALE
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YAKKANCHI, TQ. ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 586 114.
3. UDAY S/O. DILIP KAMBLE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHAMAKERI MADDI, ATHANI,
TQ. ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 586 114.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD - 580011.
BY AIGALI POLICE STATION.
2. KRISHNA S/O. SAHADEV AIHOLE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. R.C. PLOT, BALAWAD VILLAGE,
2
TQ. ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 586114.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF
SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO.398/2022 DATED
19.04.2022, AND APPELLANTS MAY BE ORDERED TO BE RELEASED ON
BAIL IN AIGALI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.28/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324,
326, 341, 342, 354, 365, 367, 368, 397, 448, 427, 504 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1) (r) (s), 3(2)(v) (va) OF
SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND REVISED 2015, TO THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3
under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST (POA)
Act') for setting aside the order of dismissal of the bail petition by
the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl. Misc.
No.398/2022 dated 19.04.2022.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent-State. The respondent No.2 is served and remained
unrepresented.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the complaint of
the respondent No.2-Krishna S/o. Sahadev Aihole before the Police
on 13.03.2022 alleging that he along with his wife are residing in
his house on 12.03.2022 at about 9.15 p.m., some unknown eight
persons came to the house and broke opened the door and
forcefully abducted him by assaulting his wife. Inspite of screaming
they abducted him in a Ertiga car. While going they used to assault
the complainant later taken to the land of the accused No.1-the first
appellant herein, where his brother was also present including three
ladies totally 25 persons were present. Then the accused No.1 and
his brothers who were also found with bamboo sticks assaulted the
complainant and abused him in filthy language by taking the name
of his caste. Subsequently, they also snatched a cash of
Rs.25,650/- from his pocket and the supari persons who abducted
him have received the money and went away. Thereafter, the
accused persons tied the complainant in a tree and also removed
his clothes and assaulted brutally with bamboo sticks and iron rod.
When the complainant demanded water, the accused No.1 told him
to drink his urine and gave leg kick on his face. They tied the
complainant in a tree and went away. Subsequently, some of
people release the complainant from the spot and went to the Police
Station to lodge a complaint against the accused persons. The
Police after registering the case arrested these petitioners on
19.03.2022 and they have remanded to judicial custody. The
appellants were approached the District Court and the same came
to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
appellants are innocent of the alleged offences and falsely
implicated, even the name of the accused Nos.2 and 3 not shown in
the FIR and also in the complaint. The complainant is already
discharged from hospital, long back the Police have completed the
investigation and filed the charge sheet, the other accused were
also arrested. Therefore, they prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent-State seriously objected the bail petition and contended
that the accused persons were committed heinous offence by
abducting and snatching money from the pocket of the
complainant. They tied the complainant in a tree with a rope and
also removed the clothes. The inhuman conduct of the accused
persons not deserves to be granted bail. The investigation is still
pending and charge sheet is yet to be file, some of the accused
were arrested and still some of the accused yet to be arrest.
Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent-State, perused the records.
7. The following point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the appellants made out the case for
setting aside the rejection of bail and they are entitled
for grant of bail?"
8. In pursuance of the records, especially complaint and
remand application reveals that the appellants engaged some
supari killers, eight persons came to the house by abusing and
assaulting the complainant and abducting the complainant in a
Ertiga car and taken to the land of the accused No.1 who said to be
land lord alleging that the complainant borrowed some loan from
them. After calling the other accused persons who were also
holding bamboo stick, all are get started assaulting and abusing the
complainant in filthy language by taking the name of his caste.
Subsequently, they snatched a cash from his pocket, they also tied
the complainant in a tree and also removed the clothes and brutally
assaulted with iron rode and bamboo sticks. When he requested
water to drink, the appellant No.1/accused No.1 gave him urine to
drink and kicked on his face by abusing him. Thereafter, they went
away from the spot and the complainant got released from some
peoples and went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader further
submits that it is clearly stated that the complainant got released
and escaped from the accused and lodged the complaint and
contended that he was admitted in the hospital for about 18 days
and still he is unable to walk properly on his further treatment. The
investigation is also still pending. The Police yet to file the charge
sheet and also yet to arrest some accused persons who abducted
the complainant. The alleged offence is not only an abduct,
kidnapping, causing grievous injurie, attempt to commit murder
and also under the Sections of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The manner
of assault and kidnapping by the accused persons is heinous one
and inhuman conduct executed by the accused persons while
assaulting the complainant who is the member of the scheduled
caste and the petitioners were belongs to the upper caste in the
case.
10. I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge/the
Special Judge rightly considered all these facts and circumstances in
the bail petition. Therefore nothing to interfering in the order
passed by the Trial Court. Since, the investigation is still pending
and charge sheet yet to be file, if the bail is granted, there is every
possibility of tampering the witnesses and destroying the evidence
of the prosecution is not ruled out.
11. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellants are not
entitled for grant of regular bail . Accordingly, the appeal is hereby
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
