Beerappa S/O Bhimappa Kurigar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 13007 Kant

                             -1-




                                   CRL.A No. 100473 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. 100473 OF 2022


BETWEEN:


BEERAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KURIGAR
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O BOMMANAL VILLAGE,
TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)


AND:


1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
      DHARWAD
      THROUGH HANAMASAGAR POLICE STATION

2.    PARVATHEVVA W/O PRAKASH PUJAR
      AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULURE
      R/O BOMMANAL VILLAGE,
      TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL 584121
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1.
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED.)


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 (A) (2) OF SC AND
ST (POA) ACT, 1989, R/W 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.30 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.144/2021
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL IN S.C. (AC) NO.20/2022 FOR THE
                                     -2-




                                            CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022


OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(va), 3(1)(w) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT AND U/S
143, 147, 323, 354(B), 326, 307, 355, 504, 506, 114, 149 OF IPC
1860.
      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by accused No.30

challenging the order dated 21.07.2022 passed in

Criminal Miscellaneous No.613/2022 filed under

Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for

brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime

No.144/2021 of Hanamasagar Police Station,

registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 323, 307, 354, 114, 504 and 506

read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and

Sections 3(1)(a), (d), (r), (s) & (w) and 3(2)(va) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

referred to as the 'SC &ST Act', for brevity) came to

be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2, in spite of

service of notice, has not chosen to appear either

in-person or through counsel.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, one

Smt Parvatevva, wife of Prakash Poojar, has filed

the complaint stating that accused No.1 had plucked

tomatoes and taken coconuts from their land and in

that regard her husband had enquired and advised

him. It is further stated that, on 13.12.2021 at

about 2:00pm, herself, her husband-Prakash Poojar

and her in-law Rangappa Poojar were there near the

shed of their garden land, at that time, accused

Nos.1 to 8 forming an unlawful assembly came to

their land, abused her husband touching his caste

and abused him in filthy language and assaulted on

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

his cheek with chappal and also on his back. Among

them, accused No.4 assaulted with the handle of the

axe on the right shoulder and they all assaulted her

husband and took him on procession by putting

footwear mala around his neck and for that, accused

Nos.9 to 27 instigated them and with an intention to

kill her husband, all the said persons assaulted him

with hands and chappal and when he asked for

water, they forced him to drink urine and all those

accused persons abused him touching his caste and

also held her hand, pulled her saree and at that time

Gangappa, Yamanoorappa and Hanumappa came and

pacified the quarrel. The said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.144/2021 of Hanamasagar

Police Station for the aforesaid offences. After

completing investigation, charge sheet came to be

filed implicating this petitioner as accused No.30 and

dropping accused Nos.3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,

19, 20, 25 and 27. The appellant filed

Crl.Misc.No.613/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

the same came to be rejected by the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, by

order dated 21.07.2022. The said order is challenged

in the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused

No.30 would contend that the alleged incident

occurred on 13.12.2021 and the complaint came to

be filed on 15.12.2021 and there is delay of 2 days

in filing the complaint. The name of this

appellant/accused No.30 is not mentioned in the

complaint or in the FIR. The appellant/accused

No.30 came to be implicated in the charge sheet

only on the ground that he is the father of accused

No.1. The accusation leveled against this

appellant/accused No.30 of abusing the husband of

the complainant touching his caste, is omnibus in

nature. Without considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned

order which requires interference by this Court.

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

With this he prayed to allow the appeal and to grant

anticipatory bail to the appellant/accused No.30.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1/State would contend

that even though the name of this appellant/accused

NO.30 is not found in the FIR but during

investigation, he was found involved in the

commission of the offence and therefore charge

sheet came to be filed against him. It is his further

submission that CWs.2 to 8 are eyewitnesses to the

incident. CWs.2 and 3 have specifically stated the

overt act of this appellant/accused No.30. There is

prima facie case against this appellant/accused

No.30 for the offences under Section 3 of the SC &

ST Act. Therefore, considering the bar under

Section 18 of the SC & St Act, the Sessions Court

has rightly rejected the petition of this

appellant/accused No.30 seeking anticipatory bail by

the impugned order which does not call for any

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

interference by this Court. With this he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone

through the charge sheet records and the impugned

order.

7. On the complaint of one Smt. Parvatevva,

wife of Prakash Poojar, a case came to be registered

against 27 persons arraigning them as accused

Nos.1 to 27. Subsequently, after investigation,

charge sheet came to be filed against this

appellant/accused No.30 also and accused Nos.3, 8,

9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25 and 27 have been

dropped from the charge sheet. The accusation

against this appellant/accused No.30 in the charge

sheet is that, he along with accused Nos.10, 14, 17,

18, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 and 26 formed an unlawful

assembly and assaulted CW-2-Prakash and abused

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

him touching his caste. The further allegation

against this appellant/accused No.30 is that, he

along with accused Nos.14, 26, 24, 28 and 29

pushed CW-3Rangappa to the ground and abused

him in filthy language and accused Nos.1 to 3 gave

life threat. Even on perusal of the statements of

CWs.2 and 3, there is no specific individual

allegation against this appellant/accused No.30. The

accusation against him is omnibus allegation.

Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the

appellant/accused No.30 along with other accused

used the same words to abuse touching the caste of

CWs.2 and 3. When there is no prima facie case,

Section 18 of SC & ST Act is not attracted. Without

considering these aspects, the learned Sessions

Judge has passed by the impugned order which

requires interference this Court. Accordingly, I

proceed to pas the following order:

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

The criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 21.07.2022 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.613/2022 is set aside and consequently,

the appellant/accused No.30 is granted anticipatory

bail and he is ordered to be released on bail in the

event of his arrest in Crime No.144/2021 of

Hanamasagar Police Station subject to the following

conditions:

i) The petitioner/accused No.30 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioner/accused No.30 shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

iii) The petitioner/accused No.30 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100473 of 2022

iv) The petitioner/accused No.30 shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kmv