Mahantesh S/O Kariyappa Walikar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 13006 Kant

                               -1-




                                     CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                            BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100493 OF 2022 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC
                         and ST ACT-)
BETWEEN:


1.    MAHANTESH S/O KARIYAPPA WALIKAR
      AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
      ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS MAHANTES S/O KARIYAPPA
      SHIVANGUTTI

2.    SHARANABASU S/O HANAMANT METI
      AGE:20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
      ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS YAMANUR MADER

3.    YAMANUR S/O BASAPPA MARADI
      AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
      ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS YAMANUR MADER

4.    SOMAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA WALIKAR
      AGE:54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
      ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS SOMANNA HUNDI

5.    SHIDDAPPA S/O KENGALAPPA KURI
      AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
      ALLEGEDLY SHOWN AS SHIDDU KURI


      ALL ARE R/O GONAL S.K., ILKAL TALUK,
      BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587118



                                                  ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G RAMPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:
                               -2-




                                    CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH ILKAL (R) POLICE STATION
     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD 580011

2.   MANJUNATH S/O MAHADEVAPPA TALAWAR
     AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
     R/O GONAL S K, ILKAL TALUK,
     BAGLKOTE DISTRICT, 587118



                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRL.MISC NO.
540/2022 AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME
NO. 66/2022 REGISTERED BY ILKAL (R) POLICE STATION, ILKAL,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148,
323, 324, 504, 149 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) (r) (s), 3(2) (5-a) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, IN SO FOR AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 AND 7 ARE
CONCERNED.
    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7,

challenging the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote,

whereunder, an anticipatory bail petition filed by the

appellants in respect of Crime No.66/2022 of Ilkal Rural

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 149 of IPC and

under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

came to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Respondent No.2 in spite of service of notice,

has not chosen to appear either in-person or through

counsel.

4. The case of the prosecution is that, on

08.08.2022 at about 10.30 p.m., when the respondent

No.2 i.e. first informant had been near the temple to

witness the festival, a quarrel had taken place in between

the first informant and the petitioners on trivial matter. All

the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful

assembly and abused the first informant in filthy language

by taking the name of his caste and humiliated him in a

public place and assaulted him with hands. The said

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

complaint came to be registered in Ilkal Rural Police

Station Crime No.66/2022 for the aforesaid offences.

5. The appellants apprehending their arrest filed

Criminal Misc. No.540/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and

the same came to be rejected by order dated 22.09.2022

by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The

said order is challenged in the instant appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that, the appellant No.1 had filed a complaint

against the respondent Nos.2 and three other and a case

came to be registered in Crime No.65/2022 against the

respondent No.2 and three others in Crime No.65/2022 of

Ilkal Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable

under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 and 109 read with

Section 34 of IPC. It is his further submission that, as a

counter blast, this present complaint came to be filed by the

respondent No.2. The appellants are innocent and they have

not committed any offence as alleged. The accusations

leveled against the appellants are that, they abused the

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

complainant touching his caste is a omnibus allegation and

it cannot be said that, the appellants abused the

complainant using the same words at the same time.

Therefore, there is no prima-facie case against these

appellants for the offences alleged against them. Without

considering the said aspect, the learned Sessions Judge

has passed the impugned order which requires

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow

the petition.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that,

the investigation is in progress. The Investigating Officer

has recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected

the wound certificate of respondent No.2 who has

sustained one simple injury. It is his further submission

that, on perusal of the averments of the complaint, there

is a prima-facie case against the appellants for the

offences punishable under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act,

1989 and therefore, considering the same and as there is

a bar under Section 18 of the Act, the Sessions Court has

rightly rejected the petition of these appellants by the

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

impugned order which does not call for any interference at

the hands of this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss

the appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone

through the averments of the complaint, FIR, the

impugned order and the averments of the complaint and

FIR of Crime No.65/2022 of Ilkal Rural Police Station.

9. The appellant No.1 has filed complaint against

the respondent Nos.2 and three others and a case came to

be registered in Ilkal Rural Police Station in Crime

No.65/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections

324, 307, 504, 506, 109, 34 of IPC. Subsequently, the

respondent No.2 filed complaint against these appellants

and others and a case came to be registered in Crime

No.66/2022 of Ilkal Rural Police Station, for the aforesaid

offences. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits

that, as a counter blast, the said complaint has been filed

by the respondent No.2. The accusations leveled against

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

these appellants and others is that, they formed an

unlawful assembly, abused the complainant touching his

caste and accused No.1 assaulted him on his back with leg

chain and at that time, his relatives came and pacified the

quarrel. Thereafter, at 11.00 p.m. again the accused No.1

picked up quarrel with him and all the accused dragged

him towards Hanuman Temple and assaulted him with

hands. The said accusation against the appellants and

other accused is a omnibus allegation. There is no specific

allegation against each of the accused. It cannot be said

that, all the accused persons abused the complainant

touching his caste with the same words at the same time.

Therefore, there is no prima-facie case against these

petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 3 of

SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore, the bar under Section 18

of the Act is not attracted. Without considering the said

aspect, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the

impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

The main apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the

appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses.

The said objection can be met with by imposing stringent

conditions.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and

submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that

there are valid grounds for setting aside the impugned

order and grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants,

subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

22.09.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.540/2022

by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote

is set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7

are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their

arrest in Crime No.66/2022 of Ilkal Rural Police Station,

subject to the following conditions:

i. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 & 7 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

ii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

iii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 shall attend the Police Station concerned on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and mark their presence for a period of two months or till filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

iv. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 shall co-operate with the investigating officer and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.

v. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100493 of 2022

vi. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH