Karnataka High Court
Brahmananda S/O Eshwarappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 September, 2022
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100344 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. BRAHMANANDA S/O ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQ, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
2. G.GOVINDRAJU S/O SANNA THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
3. G.PARASHURAMA S/O SANNA KARISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
4. G. SOMASHEKAR S/O G. GAVISIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
5. G. THIPPESWAMY S/O GAVISIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
6. G GAJENDRA S/O GAVISIDDAPPA
-2-
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
7. G. SIDDESH S/O BASAVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
8. HONNURSWAMY S/O GAVISIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
9. HONNURSWAMY S/O NAGADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
10. D. SANNA MANJUNATH S/O DALWAI BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
11. G.B.THIPPESWAMY S/O BASAVARAJA G.M.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDENT OF M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TQLUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI
TORANGALLU POLICE STATION
R/B STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BRANCH, DHARWAD-580011
-3-
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
2. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O MAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE
R/O M.GANGALAPURA VILLAGE
SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583152
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO THAT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 5 TO 14 MAY BE RELEASED ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.89/2022 OF TORANAGALLU
POLICE STATION, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 341, 323, 504 qne 506 R/W
SECTION 149 OF THE IPC AND U/S 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellants-accused
Nos.1 and 5 to 14 challenging the order dated
20.07.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.601/2022 by the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ballari, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition
filed by these appellants under Sections 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) sought in Crime
No.89/2022 of Toranagallu Police Station
registered for the offences punishable under
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
Sections 143, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with
Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as the 'I.P.C.', for brevity) and under
Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'SC & ST Act' for brevity) came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri A.Veeranna
for the appellants and Shri Prashant Mogali,
learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.
In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2-
complainant has not chosen to appear either in-
person or through counsel.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one
Smt. Siddamma W/o Mayanna of M.Gangalapura
village, Sandur taluk, Ballari district, has filed
complaint stating that her husband is a driver by
profession and they have 3 sons and two
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
daughters. That on 19.06.2022 at about 9:30pm,
one Anjineya threw stone to their water drum
placed in front of their house, her husband and her
sons namely Santosh and Shekari assaulted the
said G.M.Anjineya with hands, advised him and
sent him back. Thereafter, on 20.06.2022 at about
6:00am, the said Anjineya died. In respect of the
same at about 6:30am, the appellants and other
accused forming themselves into an unlawful
assembly came to the house of the complainant
and abused in filthy language by taking their caste
stating that since they have assaulted Anjineya
yesterday night and he died. It is further stated
that all the accused assaulted her husband with
hands and legs. Thereafter, the husband of
complainant went near the house of one Moulali,
again all of them went to Moulali's house and from
there till water filter they have dragged and
assaulted him and further, they have tied him with
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
rope to a electric pole making him half naked and
abused him in filthy language by taking his caste
and threatened to kill him. At that time, the
persons gathered rescued the husband of the
complainant. The said complaint came to be filed
on 20.06.2022 at about 11:45pm and it came to be
registered in Crime No.89/2022 of Toranagal Police
Station for the aforesaid offences. Appellant who
are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 5 to 14 in the
FIR, apprehending their arrest, have filed
Crl.Misc.No.601/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and
the same came to be rejected by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by
order dated 20.07.2022. Therefore, the appellants
have challenged the said order in the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that, the allegations made in the
complaint are false. The complaint filed is
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
emotionally and politically motivated. The
allegations made in the complaint are omnibus. On
reading of the entire averments of the complaint,
at this stage, it cannot be said that all the accused
abused the husband of the complainant, dragged
him and tied to an electric pole and assaulted him.
No specific overt act is alleged against each of the
appellants/accused. As no prima facie case is made
out under the provisions of SC & ST Act, the Bar
contained under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is
not attracted and other offences alleged are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The Special Court, without considering all these
aspects, has 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
appellants and other accused dragged the
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
complainant, made him half naked and tied him to
an electric pole, assaulted him and caused simple
injuries and also abused him by touching his caste.
The investigating officer, after investigation has
filed charge sheet against the appellants and
others for the offence punishable under Sections
143, 147, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section
149 of I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(e) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act. It is his
further submission that, on perusal of the entire
averments in the complaint and looking to the
overt act alleged against these appellants, learned
Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected their
petition by the impugned order which does not
require interference by this Court. With this, he
prayed to reject the appeal.
6. Having regard to the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Government Pleader for respondent
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
No.1/State, this Court has gone through the
complaint, FIR and also charge sheet material,
which are facilitated by the learned HCGP.
7. The husband of complainant and his two
sons assaulted G.M.Anjineya on 19.06.2022 and
the said G.M.Anjineya died on the next day.
Therefore, the appellants and other accused
formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the
complainant's husband, made him half naked and
tied him to an electric pole and assaulted him with
hands and abused him in filthy language by taking
his caste. FIR is registered against accused Nos.1
to 14. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1
to 16. On perusal of the averments of the
complaint and the statement of the witnesses,
there is no specific allegations against each of the
accused regarding abusing the complainant's
husband touching his caste, dragging him and
making him half naked and tying him to an electric
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
Pole and assaulting him. The accusation made in
the complaint is omnibus allegations. Therefore, it
cannot be said, at this stage, that all accused
abused the complainant's husband touching his
caste, made him half naked and assaulted him.
On considering the said aspects, it cannot be said
that, there is a prima facie case against the
appellants for attracting the provisions of SC & ST
Act. Without considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the
impugned order which requires interference by this
Court.
The other offences alleged against the
appellants under IPC are not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life. As charge sheet is filed,
the appellants are not required for custodial
interrogation.
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that there are valid
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
grounds for setting aside the impugned order and
grant anticipatory bail to the appellants
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 20.07.2022 passed by learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in
Crl.Misc. No.601/2022 is set aside. Consequently,
the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 5 to 14 are
granted anticipatory bail and ordered to be
released on bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No.89/2022 of Toranagal Police Station
subject to the following conditions:
i) The appellants shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
one lakh only) each with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of
jurisdictional Court.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100344 of 2022
ii) The appellants shall voluntarily appear
before the jurisdictional Court within
fifteen days from this day and execute
bail bond and furnish surety.
iii) The appellants shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iv) The appellants shall attend the Court on
all the dates of hearing, unless
exempted, and co-operate in speedy
disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kmv
