Karnataka High Court
Ramaiah K vs State Of Karnataka on 27 October, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1416 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
RAMAIAH K
S/O SUBBAIAH K
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT No.415, BEL 2ND STAGE
BHARATH NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 091. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARSHA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HALASUR GATE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. POLICE INSPECTOR
DCRE CELL, 'F' BLOCK
2ND FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI C JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S. 14 (A)(2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO DIRECT THAT IN THE EVENT OF
THE ARREST OF THE APPELLANT WHO IS ACCUSED IN
CR.No.55/2022 REGISTERED WITH THE HALASUR GATE POLICE
STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 177, 181, 196,
198, 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(q) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF CCH-71, CITY COURT
COMPLEX, BENGALURU CITY.
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Harsha D. Joshi, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned Government Pleader
for respondent No.1. Sri. C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 is absent.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short, the S.C. & S.T. Act) challenging the order
dated 16.07.2022 passed by LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, in Crl.
Misc. No.6621/2022. The appellant has sought for anticipatory
bail in relation to Crime No.55/2022 registered at Halasur Gate
Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under
Sections 177, 181, 196, 198, 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(q) of
the S.C. & S.T. Act.
3. The allegations are that the appellant belongs to Adi
Andhra which is classified as a scheduled caste. He hails from
Andhra Pradesh State. When he migrated from Andhra Pradesh
to Karnataka, he did not obtain migration certificate and in this
view, he was not entitled to claim reservation in Karnataka
State. This being the background, he applied for caste
certificate and obtained the same from the Office of the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk.
4. The very contents of the FIR shows that actually the
appellant belongs to scheduled caste. But he migrated to
Karnataka from Andhra Pradesh. It appears that he gave a
affidavit that he would belong to scheduled caste when he
applied for caste certificate to be issued by the Tahsildar,
Bengaluru North Taluk. The affidavit is suspected to be false.
The case clearly discloses that there is no dispute that the
appellant belongs to scheduled caste but only requirement was
that he should have produced the migration certificate. In these
circumstances, the learned Judge of the Trial Court could have
granted anticipatory bail. The impugned order shows non
application of mind. If at all the appellant has sworn to a false
affidavit, he can be punished for IPC offences as has been held
by me in Crl.A. No.1361/2021. The offence under Section
3(1)(q) of the S.C. and S.T. Act cannot be invoked in a situation
like this. Therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order is set aside.
The appellant is admitted to anticipatory bail. In the event
of his arrest in connection with Crime No.55/2022 registered by
the respondent Police Station, he shall be released on bail by
obtaining from him a bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O. He is subjected to the
following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the I.O. when his presence is
necessary for the purpose of investigation;
(ii) He shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses and
shall not tamper with the evidence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sac
