Karnataka High Court
Hirehanumantahappa Alias ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavarpresided Bysaj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100345 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. HIREHANUMANTAHAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA GODI
S/O. MALAKAPPA GODI
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
2. DODDABASAYYA @ DODDABASAVA KANNAL
S/O. HARISANGAPPA
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. HULIHYDER VILLAGE,
TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KANKAGIRI POLICE STATION,
BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH
AT. DHARWAD-580011.
2. SHIVASHENKARAPPA SHESHAPPA CHANNADASAR
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC- FARMER,
R/O. HULIYADER VILLAGE, TQ-KANAKAGIRI,
-2-
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
DIST.KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND
ST (POA) ACT, SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN
CRIME NO.0168/2021 IN KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION IN
RESPECT OF ACCUSED NO.1 AND 16 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 504, 506, 114, 149 AND U/S
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by accused Nos.1
and 16 challenging the order dated 02.07.2022
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.558/2022 by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,
whereunder anticipatory bail petition of the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 16 sought in Crime
No.168/2021 of Kanakagiri Police Station
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 114 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST
(POA) Act', for brevity), came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants,
learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1/State. Inspite of service of
notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and
unrepresented. The notice issued to respondent
No.2 has been served through Superintendent of
Central Prison, Dharwad, as he is in judicial
custody in another case.
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one
Shivashenkarappa the Vice President of Hulihyder
Gram Panchayath has filed the complaint on
28.11.2021 stating that on that day at about 8.30
a.m. when he was sitting in Hylihyder Gram
Panchayath by talking with the higher officers
about vaccine of Covid-19, at that time, accused
persons came there by forming an unlawful
assembly and illegally trespassed in Gram
Panchayath and abused the complainant by
referring his caste name and gave life threat to the
complainant with dire consequences and other
accused abated accused No.2 to finish the
complainant The said complaint came to be
registered in Crime No.168/2021 of Kanakagiri
Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506 read with
Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. The Police
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
after investigation filed charge sheet against
accused Nos.1 to 5, 12, 13 and 16 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 114
read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. The
appellants apprehending their arrest filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No.558/2022 along with other
accused seeking anticipatory bail and the same
came to be rejected by order dated 02.07.2022 by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal
so far as these appellants/accused Nos.1 and 16
are concerned and granted anticipatory bail to the
other accused. The appellants have challenged the
said order in the instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 16 would contend
that the FIR came to be registered against 18
persons on the complaint of respondent No.2, but
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
consequently, the charge sheet came to be filed
only against 8 persons i.e. accused Nos. 1 to 5,
12, 13 and 16. It is his further submission that
accused Nos.2 to 5, 12 and 13 have been granted
anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The
complainant is in judicial custody in murder case
and he is a habitual offender. The surname of the
complainant is Channadasar and his caste is Dasar
and alleged abuse by accused No.1 is taking his
surname. It is his further submission that there is
no allegation against accused No.16 (appellant
No.2) of his abuse to the complainant or
committed any scheduled offence to attract Section
3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. It is his further
submission that there is a counter complaint filed
by one Nagesh Nayak, in that accused have been
granted anticipatory bail. It is his further
submission that without considering all these
aspects, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
passed the impugned order which requires
interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to
allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader would contend that the
alleged incident has taken place in front of
Hulihyder Gram Panchayath office and it is a public
place. There is a specific allegation against
accused No.1 that he abused the complainant
touching has caste with abusive words. It is his
further submission that accused No.16 (appellant
No.2) instigated accused No.2 to commit the
murder of complainant. It is his further submission
that the investigation is over, charge sheet has
been filed and there are 18 persons cited
eyewitness to the incident. It is his further
submission that there is a bar under Section 18 of
the SC and ST (POA) Act for entertaining the
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. There
are prima facie materials which attracts Section 3
of SC and ST (POA) Act. Considering all these
aspects, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has
rejected the petition of these appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 16, which does not call for any
interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Having regard to the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellants and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State, this Court has gone through the
averments of the complaint, charge sheet papers
and the impugned order.
7. These appellants are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 and 16 in the FIR and also in the charge
sheet. There is a specific allegation against
accused No.1/appellant No.1 that he abused the
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
complainant touching his caste with abusive words
as "¯Éà zÁ¸ÀgÀ ¸ÀƼɪÀÄUÀ£É zÁ¸À¥Àà ©üPÉë JwÛ w£ÀÄߪÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ºÉýzÀAUÉ
PÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ E®è CAzÀgÉ ¤£Àß HgÀÄ ©lÄÖ PÀ½¹ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ JwÛ ¤ÃgÀÄ
É ÀàUÉ ©Ã¼À¨ÉÃPÀÄ".
ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ PÀÄrzÀÄ vÀ¥ The said averment of the
complaint clearly attracts the offences under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and
ST (POA) Act against accused No.1/appellant No.1.
As there is a prima facie case for the offence under
Section 3 of SC and ST (POA) Act, the petition filed
by appellant No.1/accused No.1 under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained as there is a bar
under Section 18 of the SC and ST (POA) Act.
Therefore, learned Sessions/Special Court has
rejected anticipatory bail petition of the appellant
No.1/accused No.1 by the impugned order.
The accusation against appellant
No.2/accused No.16 is that, he along with other
accused abated accused No.2 to finish the
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
complainant and instigated him. The said offence
alleged against accused No.16 is attracts Sections
109 and 114 of IPC, which are not scheduled
offences to attract Section 3(2)(va) of SC and ST
(POA) Act. The charge sheet is filed against
accused No.16/appellant No.2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 114
read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va)
of SC and ST (POA) Act. Therefore, considering
the above aspects, there is no prima facie case
against appellant No.2/accused No.16 for the
offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of SC
and ST (POA) Act. Learned Sessions/Special Court
without considering this aspect has passed the
impugned order which requires interference by this
Court. As the charge sheet is filed, accused
No.16/appellant No.2 is not required for custodial
interrogation. The offences alleged against this
appellant No.2 are not punishable with death or
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
imprisonment for life. Therefore, appellant
No.2/accused No.16 is entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail as the bar under Section 18 of SC
and ST (POA) Act is not attracted. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. The appeal is
rejected so far as accused No.1/appellant No.1 is
concerned. The appeal is allowed so far as
accused No.16/appellant No.2 is concerned and
granted anticipatory bail. Consequently, appellant
No.2/accused No.16 is ordered to be released on
bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.168/2021 of Kanakagiri Police Station, subject
to the following conditions:
i. The appellant No.2/accused No.16
shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) with one surety for the
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100345 of 2022
likesum to the satisfaction of
jurisdictional Court.
ii. The appellant No.2/accused No.16
shall not indulge in tampering the
prosecution witnesses.
iii. The appellant No.2/accused No.16
shall attend the Court on all the dates
of hearing, unless exempted, and co-
operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
