L Kariyamma vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12677 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 29 T H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                      BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1584 OF 2022


BETWEEN:

1.   L.Kariyamma
     W/o Kariyapp a,
     Aged about 48 years,
     Coolie,

2.   Maruthi S.K.,
     S/o Kariyapp a,
     Aged about 30 years,
     Coolie,

3.   K.Rag hu,
     S/o Kariyapp a,
     Aged about 34 years,

4.   G.K.Nagendrapp a,
     S/o G.N.Katapp a,
     Aged about 62 years,
     Coolie,

5.   Gopalswamy,
     S/o Narasimhapp a,
     Aged about 41 years,
     Coolie,

6.   Kenjad iyappa,
     S/o Narasimhapp a,
     Aged about 55 years,
     Coolie,
                          :: 2 ::


7.    Yasavantha,
      S/o Swamy K.,
      Aged about 20 years,
      Coolie,

8.    Ravikumar K.,
      S/o Kariyapp a N.K.,
      Aged about 29 years,
      Coolie,

9.    Nag endrapp a,
      S/o Poojarid asap pa,
      Aged about 63 years,
      Coolie,

10.   Kumar,
      S/o Jag annatha,
      Aged about 28 years,
      Coolie,

11.   Halapp a,
      S/o Jad iyappa,
      Aged about 60 years,
      Coolie,

12.   Jayanna,
      S/o Halapp a,
      Aged about 35 years,
      Coolie,

13.   Anjineya,
      S/o Seenapp a,
      Aged about 25 years,
      Coolie,

14.   Veeresh,
      S/o Rajapp a,
      Aged about 20 years,
      Coolie,

15.   Nag arajappa K.,
      S/o G.Katapp a,
                         :: 3 ::


      Aged about 62 years,
      Coolie,

16.   Chandrapp a S.D. ,
      S/o Dasapp a S.K.,
      Aged about 36 years,
      Coolie,

17.   Kariyapp a,
      S/o Jad iyappa,
      Aged about 49 years,
      Coolie,

18.   Swamy K.,
      S/o Krishnapp a,
      Aged about 42 years,
      Coolie,

19.   Krishnamurthi C.,
      S/o Chandrapp a C.,
      Aged about 29 years,
      Coolie,

20.   N.Kumar
      S/o D.Narasimhappa,
      Aged about 42 years,

21.   Mahanthesh Jayyapp a,
      S/o Jayyapp a,
      Aged about 31 years,

22.   Ning appa,
      S/o Jayyapp a,
      Aged about 32 years,
      Coolie,

23.   Shivanna,
      S/o Sannakariyappa,
      Aged about 50 years,
      Coolie,
                           :: 4 ::


24.   Umap athi @ Pattenna,
      S/o Sanna Erappa,
      Aged about 50 years,
      Coolie,

25.   S.N.Chandrapp a,
      S/o Narasimhapp a,
      Aged about 49 years,
      Coolie,

26.   Jayanna,
      S/o Sottapp a,
      Aged about 62 years,
      Coolie,

      All the appellants are
      R/o Ayitholu Iyyanahalli Villag e,
      Chitradurg a Taluk,
      Chitradurg a District-577502.
                                              ...Appellants
(By Sri Yogesh V Kotemath, Advocate for
    Sri Virupakshaiah P.H., Advocate)

AND:

1.    State of Karnataka
      By Chitradurg a Rural Police Station,
      Chitradurg a-577501.
      Rep. by Sp ecial Public Prosecutor,
      Hig h Court of Karnataka,
      Beng aluru-560001.

2.    Ravi,
      S/o Kariyapp a,
      Aged about 23 years,
      Ayitholu Villag e,
      Chitradurg a Taluk,
      Chitradurg a District-577502.
                                           ...Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;
  R2 - served)
                               :: 5 ::


      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act, praying to set asid e the order
dated 24.08.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.868/2022 passed by
the Court of Special, 2 n d Additional District and
Sessions    Judge,   Chitrad urg a  and   Enlarg e   the
app ellants/accused No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33,
36 and 37 on anticip atory b ail in the event of their
arrest in Cr.No.350/2022 by the 1 s t respondent p olice
for the alleged offence p/u/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 323,
324, 341, 354, 504, 506, 295A read with 149 of IPC
and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(2)(v-a) of
SC/ST (POA) Act by Allowing the instant criminal
app eal.


      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court d elivered the following:


                        JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Yogesh V Kotemath, learned counsel

for the appellants and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but

he has not appeared before the court either

personally or through an Advocate.

2. This appeal is filed under Section

14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act' :: 6 ::

for short), challenging the order dated 24.08.2022

passed by the II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.Misc.No.868/2022,

dismissing the appellants' application under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in relation to Crime

No.350/2022 registered by the Chitradurga Rural

police for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 354, 504, 506

and 295A of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(t) and

3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of

IPC.

3. The court below rejected the application

for anticipatory bail by giving reasons that the

matter was still under investigation, that the

appellants might be required for custodial

interrogation and that serious incident between

two groups in the village had resulted in causing

injuries to many persons.

:: 7 ::

4. Perusal of the report given by the second

respondent to the police on 02.08.2022 clearly

indicates that a group clash might have taken

place in the village. The second respondent

belongs to scheduled caste and the appellants

belong to golla community. But the genesis of the

incident does not appear to be caste based. The

first appellant herein also gave a report to the

police in regard to same incident and based on her

report, FIR came to be registered in Crime

No.351/2022. Comparing two FIRs, it can be

made out that probably when the first accused

Harish was returning to his house in a bullock cart,

a quarrel might have ensued between the first

accused and the second respondent. This incident

turned into a group clash later on.

5. Though the second respondent has stated

in his report that he and his people were abused in

the name of caste, it cannot be said that it was a :: 8 ::

caste based quarrel. In this view, prima-facie

materials for arriving at a conclusion that the

appellants had any intention to insult or humiliate

the members of scheduled caste are not

forthcoming and thereby Section 18 of the SC/ST

Act cannot be applied for declining anticipatory

bail. The court below should have appreciated the

facts and circumstances from this angle. It should

have also considered the fact that the first

appellant i.e., accused No.2 is a woman.

Therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed .

The ord er d ated 24.08.2022 p assed in Crl.Misc.868/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitrad urg a, is set aside.

In the event of arrest of the app ellants by the respondent No.1-police in connection with Crime No.350/2022, they shall be released on b ail subject to each of them :: 9 ::

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and provid ing 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 investig ating officer for completing the investig ation.

(ii) They shall attend the police station whenever their presence is necessary for the purpose of investig ation.

(iii) They shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with evid ence.

(iv) They mark their attend ance b efore the jurisdictional police station once in a fortnight p referab ly on Sund ay between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till completion of the investig ation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-