Karnataka High Court
Mahendra S vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1854 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. Mahend ra S.,
S/o Sanna Thimmapp a,
Aged about 34 years,
2. Hanumanthapp a L.T.,
S/o Thimmanna,
Aged about 64 years,
3. Shashikumar,
S/o Rund rapp a,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at Opp. Anjaneya Temple,
Hanumapura Villag e,
Birur Hob li, Kad ur Taluk,
Chikkamag aluru District-577116.
4. Govind aswamy N.,
S/o Narasapp a,
Aged about 46 years,
5. Punith Kumar B.,
S/o Basavaraju T.,
Aged about 26 years,
6. Samp ath Kumar J.G.,
S/o Govindapp a B.,
Aged about 35 years,
7. Shridhara J @ Siri
S/o Govindapp a,
:: 2 ::
Aged about 38 years,
8. Shashikumar H.,
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 37 years,
Petitioner No.1, 2 and
4 to 8 are Agriculturists,
R/at Jodithimmapura Villag e,
Birur Hob li, Kad ur Taluk-577116.
...Appellants
(By Sri Manjunath Prasad H.N., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Birur Police Station,
Birur - 577116.
Represented by
State Pub lic Prosecutor
Hig h Court of Karnataka,
Beng aluru-560001.
2. H.R.Ramesha,
S/o Rajapp a,
Aged about 35 years,
Agriculturist,
R/at Hirithimmanahalli Villag e,
Birur Hob li, Kad ur Taluk-577116.
...Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;
R2 - served)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set asid e the
order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.
No.876/2022 by I Additional Sessions and Special
Judge, Chikkamagaluru and grant anticip atory bail to
the appellant in the event of arrest in Cr.No.120/2022
for the offence p/u/s 143, 147, 504, 447, 427 read
with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 2015
:: 3 ::
registered by Birur Police Station now p ending on the
file of the Hon'ble 1 s t Additional Sessions and Sp ecial
Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
This Criminal Ap peal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act' for
short), questioning the correctness of the order
dated 16.09.2022 passed by the I Additional
Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru in
Crl.Misc.No.876/2022, rejecting the appellants'
application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime
No.120/2022 registered by the first respondent
police, for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 504, 447 and 427 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v-a) of
SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of IPC. The
appellants are accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 9.
:: 4 ::
2. Heard Sri Manjunath Prasad H N, learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State. Respondent No.2 is served with notice of
this appeal, but he has not entered appearance
either personally or through an advocate.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri
Manjunath Prasad H N brings to my notice the
earlier order passed by this court on 19.10.2022 in
Crl.A.No.1654/2022 and submits that the present
FIR was registered in connection with the same
incident. The court below rejected the appellants'
application for anticipatory bail because the earlier
application for anticipatory bail filed in connection
with Crime No.112/2022 had been rejected.
Actually both the FIRs pertain to same incident.
The first FIR was filed by Dharani Kumar, the
brother of present respondent No.2. Therefore it
:: 5 ::
is his argument that the present appeal deserves
to be allowed.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposes the bail by submitting that the FIR at the
instance of second respondent came to be
registered in relation to a different incident.
5. I have perused the two FIRs. It is clearly
stated in FIR No.112/2022 that Dharani Kumar was
cultivating 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.62 of
Hanumapura village for the last 10-15 years and
that on 23.08.2022 at 1.30pm, persons, namely,
Govindappa, Sampath, Puneeth and others
trespassed into his land and destroyed the crops.
6. Now if the FIR registered at the instance
of second respondent in Crime No.120/2022 is
read, he stated that because his brother Dharani
Kumar did not mention about the destruction
caused to the crop in his land, he was constrained
to file a separate FIR. That means, it is clear that
:: 6 ::
FIR No.112/2022 also relates to the same incident
dated 23.08.2022. Though the court below may
be justified in refusing anticipatory bail on the
ground that it did not grant anticipatory bail in
connection with FIR No.112/2022, it may be stated
that the court below has not ascertained the
genesis of the incident. The dispute appears to be
in relation to cultivation of land. I have given
detailed reasons in Crl.A.No.1654/2022 as to how
existence of prima-facie case and commission of
offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act
cannot be made out. In this view Section 18 of
the SC/ST Act does not come in the way of
granting anticipatory bail. Therefore the
impugned order is not sustainable. Hence the
following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The order dated 16.09.2022 passed
in Crl.Misc.876/2022 by the I Additional
:: 7 ::
Sessions and Special Judge,
Chikkamagaluru, is set aside.
In the event of arrest of the
appellants by the respondent police in
connection with Crime No.120/2022, they
shall be released on bail subject to each
of them 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 appellants are also
subjected to following conditions:-
(i) They shall co-operate with the
investigating officer for completing
the investigation.
(ii) They shall attend the police station
whenever their presence is
necessary for the purpose of
investigation.
(iii) They shall not threaten the
witnesses and tamper with evidence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv/-
