Karnataka High Court

Girish. P. R vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2022

Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1405 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Girish. P.R
Aged about 45 years,
S/o.Rama Reddy,
R/at No.191/1,
Ashirvad Nilaya,
JCR Layout, Panathur
Beng aluru-560 103.
                                               ...Appellant
(By Sri.Prabhugoud B.Tumbigi, Ad vocate)


AND:

1.    The State of Karnataka
      Marathahalli Police Station,
      Marathahalli, Bengaluru,
      Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor,
      Hig h Court Build ing,
      Beng aluru-560 011.

2.    Shivapp a,
      Aged about 50 years,
      S/o Ramaiah,
      R/at No.197,Panathuru Village,
      A.K Colony,Kad ugeesanahalli,
      Marthahalli,Beng aluru-560 103.
                                             ...Respondents
(By Sri.K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1,
    Sri.K.P Bhuvan, Advocate for R2)
                            :: 2 ::




      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 2015 praying to set
aside the order dated 29.07.2022 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.6932/2022 by the LXX Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge, Bangalore
(CCH-71), pass an order of anticipatory bail and
etc.,
     This   Criminal Appeal coming  on                  for
admission this day, the Court delivered                the
following :
                       JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities), Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the

Atrocities Act') challenging the order dated 29.7.2022

passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6932/2022

rejecting the appellant's application filed under section

438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Sri Prabhugoud Tumbigi, learned counsel

for the appellant, Government Pleader for respondent

No.1 and Sri K.P.Bhuvan, counsel for respondent No.2.

:: 3 ::

Sri K.P.Bhuvan today has filed statement of objections and

produced some documents.

3. It is the argument of the appellant's counsel that

the trial court has failed to notice that the FIR registered

against him does not prima facie disclose existence of a

case that can be brought within the ambit of the Atrocities

Act. If the report made by second respondent is read, it

becomes clear that the second respondent has

intentionally alleged that the appellant took the caste of

the second respondent even though the actual dispute

pertains to real estate business. Though it is stated that

on 1.12.2021 at 2.00 PM, the appellant abused the second

respondent and his wife in the name of his caste, perusal

of the documents that the appellant has produced clearly

indicate that on 1.12.2021, the wife of the second

respondent was not in her house and she had attended

the work where she is employed. Extract of attendance

where the second respondent's wife is employed are :: 4 ::

produced and these documents clearly prove that the wife

was present in her work. Therefore it can be said that no

incident took place on 1.12.2021 and the second

respondent foisted false complaint against the appellant.

He refers to the FIR registered against the second

respondent and argues that as a counter blast to the said

FIR, second respondent approached the police for

harassing the appellant. The trial court has not at all

considered the documents and has recorded a wrong

finding that these findings cannot be considered for

assessing whether prima facie case exists or not. He also

submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet

has been filed. Wrongly it is shown in the charge sheet

that the appellant has absconded whereas notice issued

by the police clearly approve that the appellant is very

much present in his village.

4. Sri K.P.Bhuvan for the second respondent

submits that because the second respondent is into real

estate business, the intention of the appellant is to see :: 5 ::

that he should not enter in the real estate business and

this was the reason for a false complaint registered

against the second respondent. There did take place an

incident on 1.12.2021. Immediately the second

respondent went to police station, but his complaint was

not received. The endorsement made at the end of the

complaint clearly shows that the second respondent had

to approach Civil Enforcement Cell and thereafter on

direction, the jurisdiction police received his complaint and

registered FIR. This shows that the appellant is very

powerful. Rightly the court below has come to conclusion

that prima facie case for granting anticipatory bail is not

made out and therefore appeal is to dismissed.

5. Government Pleader argues for sustaining the

impugned order.

6. If the materials made available are perused, one

thing becomes clear that the appellant as well as the

second respondent may be the real estate agents and in

that background probably there might exist some :: 6 ::

differences between them. The FIR in Crime No.251/2021

registered by the police shows that there were allegations

against one Venugopal Reddy and a few others including

the second respondent that they indulged in fabrication

and forgery of documents for laying claim on Sy.

No.240/7, old Sy. No. 240/2 of Amani Bellandur Khane

Village, Varthur Hobli. This FIR was registered on

1.10.2021. It is the case of the appellant that the second

respondent made a complaint against him as a counter

blast to the FIR against him. If those two FIRs are seen,

an inference can be drawn that rivalry in the background

of real estate business could be the reason for registration

of two FIRs. The allegation is that on 1.12.2021 at 2.00

PM, the appellant went near the house of the second

respondent and started taking the video and when the

second respondent questioned him, he was abused in the

name of the caste and threatened to be killed. It is also

alleged that at that time the appellant abused the wife of

the second respondent. That means, on 1.12.2021 the

appellant not only abused the second respondent but also :: 7 ::

his wife. The appellant has produced two documents, one

an identity card issued by the Prestige Group showing that

the second respondent's wife is working as a House

Keeper and a copy of register of attendance of that

company. This document shows that the respondent's

wife entered the premises of the company on 1.12.2021

at 8.32 AM and came out at 17.10 hours. If this

document is held to be true, certainly doubt arises

whether she was present at 2.00 PM on 1.12.2021. The

trial court has held that these documents cannot be

considered for deciding the application for anticipatory

bail. This is a wrong finding. There is no bar as such that

the documents produced by the accused claiming

anticipatory bail cannot be considered for deciding the

application. If the documents produced by the accused

throw light on the incident in order to enable the court to

take proper decision, certainly those documents can be

considered. Therefore, if the attendance register is seen,

what the second respondent has stated in the report made

by him to the police for registration of FIR is difficult to be :: 8 ::

believed at this stage. In this view, though in the second

respondent's report to the police there is mention about

caste name, it is difficult to hold that really an incident in

the background of caste took place. The real genesis

appears to be real estate business. Anyway investigation

is completed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that

anticipatory bail can be granted. Hence, the following : -

ORDER

(a) Appeal is allowed.

(b) The impugned order dated 29.7.2022 passed

by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.6932/2022 rejecting the appellant's

application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C for

anticipatory bail, is set aside.