Srinath Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7737 Kant

                             1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200089/2022

Between:
Srinath Shetty @ Srinivas
S/o Veerayya Shetty,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Ramalingeshwara Layout,
I.B.Road, Raichur,
Dist. Raichur-584 101.
                                                ... Appellant
(By Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate)

And:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Through S.H.O., West Police Station,
       Raichur, Dist. Raichur.
       Represented by Additional S.P.P.
       Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
       Bench at Kalaburagi-585 103.

2.     Smt. Devi W/o Prashanth,
       Age: 30 years, Occ: Household work,
       R/o H.No.1-3-573/161,
       Station Area Layout, Lambani Colony,
       Raichur, Dist. Raichur-584 101.
                                              ... Respondents

(By Sri. H.S.Shankar, HCGP for R1
By Sri. Bheemaraya M.N., Advocate for R2)
                               2




      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A of
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, praying to allow the appeal and grant
regular bail to appellant/accused No.4 in Spl. Case (A)
No.442/2022 pending on the file of the Special Court for
cases under SC & ST (PoA) Act and I-Additional Sessions
Judge, Raichur, arising out of Crime No.08/2022 of West
Police Station, Raichur for the alleged offence punishable
under Section U/Sec.143, 147, 324, 307, 354, 504, 506,
326 & Sec.149 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s)(w-i), 3(2)(v-a) of
the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act,
2015.

      This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:

                      JUDGMENT

The appellants-accused No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are

before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'

for short) in Crime No.8/2022 of West Police Station,

Raichur, pending before the Special Court and I Additional

Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Spl.Case (A) No.442/2022

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,

147, 324, 307, 354, 504, 506 326 r/w section 149 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and under Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act, on the

basis of the first information lodged by informant-

Shashikala.

2. Heard Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned Counsel

for the appellants and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted

that the appellants are arrayed as accused No.1, 2, 3, 5

and 6. They have been falsely implicated in the case

without any basis. The complainant Smt. Devi filed a

private complaint on 17.04.2021, alleging commission of

offence by accused Nos.1 to 6 on 20.03.2021. There is

inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which has not

been explained properly. It is stated that accused Nos.1, 2,

3 and 4 assaulted the complainant and thrown her on the

road, even though they were knowing that complainant

was six months' pregnant and caused injuries to her. It is

also stated that accused No.1 assaulted with a spade and

caused grievous bleeding injuries. But the wound

certificate relating to the complaint does not support such

contention.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

that there is dispute between the injured Shashikala and

the accused Nos.5 and 6 in respect of a residential house

No.1-4-88/157A-1 situated at Raichur. A suit in

O.S.No.72/2020 was filed by the said Shashikala against

accused Nos.5 and 6 seeking declaration and injunction.

Temporary injunction was refused by the Trial Court. The

said suit is still pending. In the meantime, the accused

pressurized the complainant and therefore, said Shashikala

lodged a similar private complaint in PCR No.105/2020

making allegations against accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 447, 384, 504,

506, 511 r/w 149 of IPC. In the said complaint, present

complainant Smt. Devi is cited as witness and one

Mohd.Rafi is also cited as witness. In the present

complaint, the complainant Devi has filed a complaint

citing Shashikala, who is the complainant in PCR

No.105/2020, as witness and very same Mohd.Rafi is also

cited as witness. Again the dispute in the present

complaint is also with respect to plot No.1-4-88/157A-1

belonging to Shashikala in respect of which there is dispute

between her and accused Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, it is a

clear case of abuse of process of law and the complainant

is making use of the provisions of special enactment.

Learned counsel also submitted that accused No.4 was

apprehended and detained in custody. The wound

certificate discloses that Shashikala sustained only one

simple injury, whereas Smt. Devi said to have had

tenderness in abdomen and she was discharged from the

hospital within two days. She had not sustained grievous

injuries as tried to be made out in the complaint. Learned

counsel for the appellants also submitted that appellants

are not required for custodial interrogation or for any other

purpose. They are ready and willing to co-operate with the

Investigating Officer.

5. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prithvi Raj

Chauhan vs. Union of India to contend that there is no

absolute bar for grant of anticipatory bail where the

provisions of special enactment are invoked. Accordingly,

he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 opposing the appeal

submitted that serious allegations are made against the

appellants for having committed the offence. These

appellants are absconding since the date of registration of

case. The complainant had specifically stated regarding the

overt act committed by each of the accused. The wound

certificate of the injured discloses that she has sustained

one grievous injury and witness Shashikala also sustained

simple injury. The provisions of special enactment is

invoked. There is clear bar for grant of anticipatory bail

and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

1 AIR 2020 SC 1036

7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

8. The complainant had made specific allegations

against accused for having committed the offence. She has

stated in the complaint that witness Shashikala and

accused Nos.5 and 6 are having dispute with regard to a

plot No.1-4-88/157A-1 and a suit is filed in that regard by

the said Shashikala who cited as witness No.1 in the

present case. It is stated that on 20.03.2021 at about

11.30 a.m., when the complainant along with her friend

Shashikala went to the said plot, along with labours for

construction of a shed, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the

spot and abused them in filthy language and committed

the offence. It is stated that complainant was physically

lifted by accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and thrown on the

road, knowing that she is pregnant. Similarly accused No.1

assaulted Shashikala with a spade on her head and caused

heavy bleeding injury. But the wound certificate discloses

that Shashikala has sustained only simple injury, i.e., cut

lacerated wound measuring 7x0.5x1cm over right frontal

region, whereas wound certificate pertaining to the

complainant discloses that she has sustained one grievous

injury i.e., tenderness over the abdomen and she was

discharged from the hospital on 22.03.2021. Nature of the

injuries mentioned in the wound certificate discloses that

there is exaggeration in alleging the commission of offence

by the accused.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants produced

copy of the private complaint in PCR No.105/2020 which is

pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Raichur, registered in C.C.No.2466/2020 filed by

Shashikala Patil against accused No.3 and others. In the

said complaint, the present complainant - Smt.Devi is cited

as witness along with one Mohd.Rafi who is also cited as

witness in the present case. Similar allegations are made

against accused in the said complaint. It was also in

respect of a vacant site bearing No.1-4-88/157A-1. It is

stated that a civil suit is also pending in that regard in the

civil Court.

10. All these materials disclose that there was civil

dispute between Shashikala and accused Nos.5 and 6 in

respect of an open site. Two different private complaints

are filed one by Shashikala citing Smt. Devi and Mohd.Rafi

as witnesses and the other by present complainant Smt.

Devi citing Shashikala and Mohd. Rafi as witnesses. There

is exaggeration in explaining the overt-act committed by

the accused and causing injuries.

11. The nature of allegations made do not require

these appellants for custodial interrogation. Even though.

there is bar for grant of anticipatory bail, provisions of

special enactment are invoked, learned counsel for the

appellant places reliance on the decision in Prithvi Raj

Chouhan (supra) case wherein it is held in paragraph 31

and 32 as under:

"31. As far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J., has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the Court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.

32. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasize that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests, i.e., that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR and further also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant

pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament."

12. In the present facts and circumstances of the

case, it disclose that there are no prima facie material

against accused which requires arrest of the accused.

These are no materials to hold that simply because the

injured belongs to schedule caste, the accused have

committed the offence. On the other hand, admittedly,

there is dispute about an open site. The refusal to grant

anticipatory bail would definitely lead to miscarriage of

justice, as admittedly, there is pending civil dispute and a

complaint was earlier filed by Shashikala making similar

allegations against accused. Therefore, I am of the

opinion, that the appellants may be granted anticipatory

bail subject to conditions which will take care of the

interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the

complainant and the witnesses.

13. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in

Crime No.8/2022 of Raichur West Circle Police Station,

Raichur, on obtaining the bonds in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court,

subject to the following conditions:

a) The appellants shall not commit similar

offence.

b) The appellants shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c) The appellants shall appear before the Court as and when required.

In case, the appellants violate any of the conditions

as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, the Trial

Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of

the documents furnished by the appellants and the

sureties and a report may be called for in that regard,

which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within

5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to

accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the

appellants on bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR