Karnataka High Court
Kempegowda D B vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1285 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Kemp egowd a D.B.,
S/o. Chittegowd a,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.11, 6 t h Cross,
8 t h Main, 3 r d Block,
Nandini Layout,
Beng aluru-560096.
...Appellant
(By Sri D.Nag araj, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
RMC Yard Police Station,
Beng aluru
Represented by
Special Pub lic Prosecutor
2. Gang araju
S/o. Late Chikka Kemp anna,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.218, 1 s t Main,
3 r d Cross, Kantiravanag ar,
Nand ini Layout,
Beng aluru-560096.
...Respond ents
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;
Sri M.N.Sunil, Advocate for R2)
:: 2 ::
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside
the order d ated 17.06.2022 passed by the Learned
Special Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.Petition
No.5294/2022 and direct the 1 s t respond ent police to
enlarg e him on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.84/2022 registered by the 1 s t respondent p olice
for the offence p/u/s 506, 504, 307 of IPC and Section
3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri D.Nagaraj, learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri
M.V.Sunil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section
14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST Act'
for short], challenging the correctness of the order
dated 17.06.2022 passed by the LXX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.5294/2022,
rejecting the appellant's application under Section
438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail.
:: 3 ::
3. On 19.05.2022, an FIR in Crime
No.84/2022 was registered against the appellant
at the instance of second respondent in relation to
offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of
SC/ST Act and Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC.
4. The FIR states that on 05.05.2022 at
9.00pm, when the second respondent was drinking
water in the petrol bunk situated near Kanteerava
Studio, the appellant came to that place, abused
the second respondent in vulgar language by
referring to his caste and then assaulted on his
head with an iron rod. It is alleged that the
appellant tried to make an attempt on the life of
the second respondent. He sustained a severe
bleeding injury and fell down unconscious.
Somebody telephoned to the police, who came to
the spot immediately and shifted him to
K.C.General Hospital. This incident led to
registration of FIR.
:: 4 ::
5. The court below rejected the petition by
giving reasons that the materials produced before
the court would clearly show existence of prima-
facie case in regard to involvement of the
appellant in the crime and that in view of Section
18 of the SC/ST Act anticipatory bail could not be
granted.
6. Sri Nagaraj D, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant challenged
the FIR by filing criminal petition No.6397/2022
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and this court stayed
the FIR insofar as it relates to offences under the
provisions of SC/ST Act. This is not disputed by
the second respondent. By virtue of the said
order, now what is to be examined is whether
there is a case for granting anticipatory bail in
relation to offences under Sections 504, 506 and
307 of IPC.
:: 5 ::
7. As rightly submitted by the appellant's
counsel, the alleged incident is said to have taken
place on 05.05.2022 and FIR was registered by the
police on 19.05.2022. It is interesting to note
that in the report made by second respondent
itself it is clearly written that when the second
respondent fell down unconscious at the spot, the
police came to that place and shifted him to
hospital. The photostat copy of MLC extract sent
by the hospital to police station bears the date
05.05.2022. If the incident as mentioned in the
FIR had really taken place, it is not
understandable as to why the police did not think
of registering FIR soon after they came to know
about the cognizable offence having taken place.
In the MLC note, presence of bleeding injury in
occipital region of the second respondent is
mentioned. Delay in registration of FIR not only
leads to doubt whether the incident had taken
:: 6 ::
place in the manner it was reported but also about
the contents of MLC relating to injuries.
8. Further it is submitted by the appellant's
counsel that the second respondent had borrowed
an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the appellant
and in that regard he executed an agreement on
11.10.2019, agreeing to repay the amount. Copy
of the agreement is produced. He also refers to a
cheque issued by the second respondent to the
appellant for Rs.1,50,000/-. It appears that the
appellant instituted a complaint against the second
respondent as the cheque was dishonored. It was
in this connection that the alleged incident is said
to have taken place. If these materials are
considered, what appears is because the appellant
instituted a complaint against the second
respondent, the latter might have taken criminal
action against the appellant to wreak vengeance.
Any way it is a matter of investigation and proof
:: 7 ::
before the court. The trial court ought to have
appreciated the facts from this angle. Therefore I
find that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Hence the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed .
The ord er d ated 17.06.2022 p assed in
Crl.Misc.5294/2022 by the LXX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), is set asid e.
Application und er Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the appellant
by the first resp ondent police in connection
with Crime No.84/2022, he shall b e released
on b ail subject to his executing a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and
providing two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the investigating officer. The
app ellant is also subjected to following
conditions:-
:: 8 ::
(i) He shall co-operate with the
investigating officer for completing the
investigation.
(ii) He shall attend the police station
whenever his presence is necessary for
the purpose of investigation.
(iii) He shall not threaten the witnesses
and tamp er with evid ence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv/-
