Dhavalo S/O Ganesh Savarkar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7740 Kant

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022

                            BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100209 OF 2022

BETWEEN

DHAVALO S/O. GANESH SAVARKAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NANDIGADDE, GUNDA-581186,
TQ. JOIDA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
                                                  .....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THROUGH JOIDA POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD-580011.

2.    SMT. SUMAN W/O. GIRISH HARIJAN
      AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
      R/O. NANDIGADDE, GUNDA-581186,
      TQ. JOIDA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA.
                                                ......RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. ANAND DESAI, ADV. FOR R2)


      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF THE SC AND
ST (POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL APPEAL
AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED
TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT JOIDA POLICE TO RELEASE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME
                                   2




NO.9/2022 FILED AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r) AND 3(1) (u) OF THE SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.


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

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under Section

14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST (POA) Act') to grant

anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent-Police

in Crime No.9/2022 registered by the Joida Police, Karwar District

for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of

the SC & ST (POA) Act.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of

respondent No.2 the Joida Police has registered a case for the

aforesaid offences stated in the complaint filed by one Smt. Suman

W/o. Girish Harijan on 12.03.2022, where she has alleged that she

is the Chairman of Nandigadde Village Panchayat and on

11.03.2022 at about 10.30 a.m. when she was in the office her

husband-Girish came for dropping her in a car and he was stands in

front of the Panchayat Office, at that time the appellant-accused

said to be came and video graphing the complainant in his mobile

phone and when the complainant as well as her husband

questioned him the same, the appellant-accused said to be went to

opposite house by staring towards them. When the same was

asked to the complainant she stated that the accused and others

were continuously harassing the complainant and harassed

mentally not only on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled

Caste community and also the complainant stated that the accused

took the video graph by staring towards her and insulted her.

Therefore she lodged the complaint by next day stating that due to

the office work she was unable to file the complaint in time. After

registering the case, Police has arrested the appellant-accused.

Apprehending the arrest in the hands of Police, the appellant-

accused filed the bail petition which came to be rejected by the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, by

the impugned order challenged under this appeal in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.131/2022 dated 25.04.2022. Hence, the

appellant-accused is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has

contended that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and

he has been falsely implicated even otherwise the provision under

Section 3(1)(r) of the SC & ST (POA) Act will not attract. The

petitioner himself lodged a complaint against the informant on

11.03.2022 itself, the same was registered as a NCR case and to

prevent the same as a counter blast this complaint has been filed

by the informant. The appellant is ready to abide by any conditions

and hence prayed for granting bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1 seriously objected the bail petition on the

ground that there is a bar under Section 18 and 18A(i) of the Act

for granting anticipatory bail and the appellant-accused is required

for custodial interrogation as he has taken the video graph of the

complainant and her husband and refused to give that and he was

always insulting them because they belongs to SC & ST members

and to harass them this offence has been committed. Therefore

there is every possibility of tampering the video graph is not ruled

out. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-informant who

is also objected the petition and contended that the appellant-

accused is required for custodial interrogation as the Police has

seized the mobile which is used for video clippings. The appellant-

accused was continuously harassing the complainant even though

she become the Chairman of Nandigadde Village Panchayat.

Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1 and the learned counsel for the informant, perused the

records.

8. The points would arise to my consideration is:

"Whether the appellant made out a

case for setting aside the order of the

Sessions Judge and to grant anticipatory

bail?"

9. On perusal of the records the complainant-informant

itself discloses that she is belongs to a member of SC & ST

community and she is the Chairman of Nandigadde Village

Panchayat and the appellant is said to be a former member of the

said village panchayat and on 11.03.2022 he has taken the video

graph of the complainant, when the complainant's husband came

and dropped her to the office and there was a quarrel between

them. At that time the complainant said to be abused and also the

complainant abused the appellant-accused for getting back the

mobile phone video graphs. The appellant-accused himself filed a

complaint against the very informant on 11.03.2022 in the same

Police Station, where the Police has registered a non-cognizable

NCR Case No.1/2022. Where he has stated that the complainant

i.e., Smt. Suman W/o. Girish Harijan and her husband both came in

a car and the husband of the informant Girish said to be called him

and abused him in filthy landuage. The filing of the complaint by

the appellant-accused clearly shows the incident dated 11.03.2022

is an admitted fact. The appellant stated that the complaint's

husband said to be abused him in filthy language calling him as

"Davalo Savarkar" in Marathi language. Therefore, the appellant-

accused went to the Police Station and filed the complaint. Though

there is a delay of one day in filing the complaint by the informant,

but she has explained the delay that she was in the office and doing

some official work and unable to come immediately to lodge the

complaint.

10. The facts reveals that the incident was an admitted one

as there was a quarrel between them and on the background this

appellant took the video graphs of the complainant and her

husband. The facts reveals that the provisions under Section 3(1)(r)

insulting the member of the SC & ST community itself attached to

the alleged offences. The complainant who is woman and member

of SC community inspite of becoming a Chairman of the Village

Panchayat, the appellant being upper caste member knowing fully

the complainant is the member of SC & ST, their names itself

reflects that they belongs to SC & ST community intentionally

harassed and he has taken the video graphs and insulted them.

Therefore the provisions under Section 3(1)(r) is attracted. The

Special Judge has rejected the bail stating that the said offence

alleged against the appellant is made out. Admittedly under

Section 18 and 18A(i) there is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail

by the Court. The appellant has taken the video graphs of the

informant through his mobile phone therefore the Police required to

seize the mobile phone as well as video clippings. Therefore in

order to seize the mobile phone and video clippings the appellant is

required for custodial interrogation. If the anticipatory bail is

granted there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses and

destroying the mobile phone and its clippings are not ruled out.

11. Therefore, appellant not made out any grounds for

granting anticipatory bail by setting aside the order of the Special

Judge. There is no merits in this appeal and it is liable to be

dismissed.

12. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM