Sri Deepak vs The State
2022 Latest Caselaw 12698 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 31 S T DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1455 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri Deepak,
S/o Srinivasa Gowda,
Aged about 29 years,
Agriculturist,
R/o Magodu, Markal Villag e,
Sring eri Taluk,
Chikmagaluru District-577139.
                                         ...Appellant
(By Sri H.Malathesh, Advocate)

AND:

1.   The State
     Through the Police Inspector,
     Sring eri Police Station,
     Chikmag aluru District.
     (Represented by the
     State Pub lic Prosecutor,
     Hig h Court of Karnataka,
     Beng aluru-01).

2.   Sri Sushanth M.C.,
     Aged about 22 years,
     S/o Late Chinnaiah,
     Coolie work,
     R/O Magodu, Markal Villag e,
     Sring eri Taluk, Chikmag aluru,
     District-577139.
                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1;
 R2 - served)
                               :: 2 ::


      This    Criminal    Appeal    is   filed   under    Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to g rant an
order of regular bail to the app ellant, and set aside
the   order    d ated    02.06.2022      passed    in    Spl.Case
No.53/2022 pending in the file of I Additional Sessions
and Sp ecial Jud ge at Chikkamagaluru in connection
with CR.No.11/2022 of Sring eri Police Station, for the
offence p/u/s 307, 427, 506, 324 of IPC and Section
3(1)(r)(s),    3(2)(va)       of   SC/ST     (POA)       Act   and
conseq uently enlarg e him on b ail.


      This Criminal Ap peal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:


                          JUDGMENT

Heard Sri H Malatesh, learned counsel for the

appellant 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.

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' :: 3 ::

for short), questioning the correctness of the order

dated 02.06.2022 passed by the I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in

Spl. Case No.53/2022, dismissing the appellant's

application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. The prosecution case is that on

18.03.2022 at 07.30am, the second respondent

parked his motorcycle by the side of road and

went to the house of one Chetan S/o

Venkateshagowda. When he returned from

Chetan's house, the appellant took objection for

having parked the motorcycle at that place and

keeping in mind the previous enemity, knocked

down the motorcycle and damaged it. When the

second respondent took objection for that, the

appellant is said to have inflicted injuries with a

sickle below the right eye and then scratched on

his neck with his nails.

:: 4 ::

4. The argument of Sri H.Malatesh is that

actually the second respondent parked his

motorcycle in front of the house of the appellant

and when the latter asked the second respondent

to remove the motorcycle, a quarrel took place.

This quarrel was exaggerated to give it a colour

that the appellant made an attempt on the life of

the second respondent. The wound certificate

discloses that the injuries were simple in nature

and inspite of that FIR came to be registered for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

Therefore it can be clearly made out that the

offence under Section 307 of IPC has been invoked

unnecessarily only to harass the appellant. Even

the offences under the Atrocities Act is not made

out and in this view, the appellant is entitled to be

released on bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that though the wound certificate shows :: 5 ::

that the injuries are simple in nature, the

appellant has got criminal background. The report

submitted by the investigating officer shows that

the appellant was arrested by the police as he had

made an attempt on the life of his own father. He

was released on bail and on the very next day he

committed the offence. Rightly the court below

came to conclusion to reject the bail and if the

appeal is allowed now, the appellant will again

indulge in committing crime and therefore appeal

is to be dismissed.

6. The complaint made by the second

respondent to the police on 18.03.2022 clearly

shows that the quarrel between the appellant and

the second respondent might have taken place for

the reason that the second respondent had parked

his motorcycle by the side of the road. According

to appellant's counsel, the motorcycle was parked

right in front of the house of the appellant and this :: 6 ::

was the reason for the quarrel to take place. But

the prosecution papers do not indicate whether the

motorcycle had been parked in front of the house

of the appellant or not. It is the defence of the

accused and with reference to the mahazar and

other materials, the witnesses are to be

questioned in the cross examination. However,

the fact remains that parking of motorcycle was

the reason for the quarrel. Investigation is

completed and charge sheet has been filed.

7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that

the court below has in fact considered the medical

records and held that though the injuries are

shown to be simple, they were inflicted on the

vital parts of the body and there is an allegation

that the appellant chased CW1 and CW2 in order

to commit their murder.

8. From the report submitted by the

investigating officer, it is found that the appellant :: 7 ::

was arrested in connection with another case

pertaining to inflicting injuries to his father and

after release from the jail on bail, he is said to

have committed an offence concerning second

respondent.

9. Be that as it may, since the actual

reason for the incident was parking of the

motorcycle, whether the appellant had intention to

make an attempt on the life of second respondent

or not, is a matter to be established by the

prosecution. At this stage, no inference can be

drawn to that effect. Likewise, the police appears

to have invoked the provisions of Atrocities Act

only because the second respondent belongs to

scheduled caste. The trial court ought to have

examined whether an incident in the background

of caste factor had taken place or not. Therefore I

don't think that the registration of FIR for the

offences under the Atrocities Act is proper.

:: 8 ::

10. Though there is an injury on the neck of

the second respondent, the wound certificate

discloses that the injuries are simple and in this

view the trial court ought to have examined

whether those injuries were likely to cause death.

Prima-facie case for the offence under Section 307

of IPC is not made out. Therefore appeal deserves

to be allowed. However, keeping in mind the

criminal antecedents of the appellant, he should

be subjected to stringent conditions. Hence the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru dated 02.06.2022 in Spl.Case.No.53/2022 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

The appellant is admitted to bail on obtaining from him a bond for :: 9 ::

Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

    i.        He   shall       not     tamper        with      the
              evidence         and           threaten          the
              witnesses.

    ii.       He shall regularly appear before the

trial court till conclusion of the trial.

iii. He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police station once in fortnight preferably on a Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon till conclusion of trial.

iv. He shall not get involved in any other criminal case/s in future. If the appellant gets involved in any criminal case in future, the court below may cancel the bail soon after the same is brought to its notice.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-