Karnataka High Court
M K Ningappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1943 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M.K.Ning app a,
S/o. Late Karigowda,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at 6 t h "A" Cross,
Rajakempegowd a Bad avane,
Channapatna Town,
Ramanag ar District-562159.
...Appellant
(By Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By the Police of
Akkuru Police Station,
Ramanag ar District-562159.
Represented by SPP
Hig h Court of Karnataka,
Beng aluru - 560001.
2. Shiva V.K.,
S/o Late Karig undaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Virup akshipura Hobli,
Channap atna Taluk,
Ramanag ar District-562159.
...Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;
R2 - Served . Unrepresented)
:: 2 ::
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set asid e the
order d ated 07.11.2022 passed by the Learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanag ara in
Crl.Misc.No.962/2022 and g rant him anticipatory bail
in Cr.No.221/2022 of Akkuru Police Station,
Channapattana Taluk, Ramanag ara District now
pend ing on the file of the Learned Princip al District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanag ara for the offence p/u/s
427, 447, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Ap peal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-
State. Respondent No.2 has not appeared before
this court inspite of service of notice on him.
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 07.11.2022 passed by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in
:: 3 ::
Crl.Misc.No.962/2022, rejecting the appellant's
application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime
No.221/2022 registered by the first respondent-
police for the offences punishable under Sections
427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act.
3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that
the court below appears to have declined
anticipatory bail to the appellant because of some
confusion with regard to identity of accused No.2.
In the FIR, the name is written as Lawyer
Lingappa of Chikkalurudoddi village, Kasaba Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk. But the appellant's name is
M.K.Ningappa, who is a practising advocate at
Channapatna.
4. In regard to incident dated 21.09.2022,
the second respondent approached the police on
03.10.2022. The allegations found in FIR are that
:: 4 ::
the second respondent came to know at about
10.00 am on 21.09.2022 that two teak trees grown
by him in his land were being cut. He went to that
place and saw the trees being cut. When he
questioned one Mahalinga, i.e., accused No.1 as to
why he was cutting the trees, he showed one
Lingappa and said that Lingappa was constructing
a house and he wanted the trees. When second
respondent told that the trees belonged to him, it
is alleged that Lingappa took the name of the
caste of second respondent and abused him in
vulgar language by referring to his caste name and
threatened him of dire consequence. Therefore as
has been observed by the court below, the person
present at the place of incident was one Lingappa
and not Ningappa.
5. The argument of Sri K.A.Chandrashekara
is that, there is only one person namely Ningappa
who is practising as a Lawyer at Channapatna and
:: 5 ::
for this reason he has a threat of being arrested.
He also submits that all IPC offences mentioned in
the FIR are bailable and the allegation with regard
to caste cannot be believed, because of delay in
registration of FIR.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that investigation is still pending and the
police have to ascertain whether the appellant was
the person who was present at the place of
incident or not. In FIR, the name forthcoming is
Lingappa, who is also called Lawyer Lingappa.
7. The appellant's name is M.K.Ningappa
and he is a practising advocate. As per the
submission made by Sri K.A.Chandrashekara, the
appellant is not constructing a house. If this
statement is taken into consideration, an inference
may be drawn that the appellant was not the
person present at the place of incident. However
the appellant's apprehension of being arrested
:: 6 ::
appears to be well founded because, it is
submitted that there is no advocate by name
Lingappa who is practicing at Channapatna.
Therefore the name as referred to in FIR according
to him refers to appellant and therefore he has
apprehension of being arrested.
8. Anticipatory bail can be granted in favour
of a person who has a threat of arrest in
connection with non bailable offence. In view of
some confusion in the name, if the appellant has a
fear of being arrested, it can be taken into
consideration. As has been argued by the
appellant's counsel, the offences punishable under
Section 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC are bailable
and only non-bailable offence is under Section
3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.
9. If the appellant was the person who was
present at the spot while cutting the trees, delay
:: 7 ::
in registration of FIR certainly matters. It is not
understandable as to why the second respondent
waited till 03.10.2022 to approach the police even
though the incident is said to have taken place on
21.09.2022. There is no explanation. In this
view, I find that the appellant has made out a case
for grant of anticipatory bail. The court below
could have granted anticipatory bail in these set of
circumstances. Sometimes, delay in registration
of FIR may be considered to find out whether
prima-facie case exists or not. Therefore appeal
deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed .
The ord er d ated 07.11.2022 p assed in
Crl.Misc.962/2022 by the I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, is
set aside.
Application und er Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., is allowed.
:: 8 ::
In the event of arrest of the appellant
by the first resp ondent police in connection
with Crime No.221/2022, he shall be
released on b ail subject to his executing a
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only)
and providing one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
The appellant is also subjected to following
conditions:-
(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/-
