K Mahesh Hebbar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11654 Kant

 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.1385 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.    K.Mahesh Hebb ar
      S/o K.Venkatesh Hebb ar
      Aged about 43 years
      R/at "Bhag yalakshmi Nilaya"
      Cholebettu, Kukkehalli village,
      Udupi-576 124.

2.    Srivathsa S.Bhat
      S/o Sub ramanya Bhat
      Aged about 24 years
      R/at D.No.2-50
      "Bhoomika" Pangala Post
      Kapu Taluk 574 106.
                                         ...Appellants
(By Sri Jag adeesha B N, Advocate)

AND:

1.    The State of Karnataka
      By PSI Hiriad ka Police Station
      Represented by:
      State Pub lic Prosecutor,
      Hig h Court Build ing,
      Bang alore-560 001.


2.    Sanjeeva Naik
      S/o Korag a Naik
      Aged about 46 years
      R/at Cholebettu House
                                 :: 2 ::


       Kukkehalli,
       Udupi- 576 124.
                                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri K.Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
     R2-Served)

       This    Criminal    Appeal       is    filed    under    Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 2015 praying to set aside
the    order    d ated    22.07.2022          passed     in    Crl.Misc.
No.145/2022       passed    by    the        Learned    Prl.   Sessions
Judge, Udup i and release of the appellants in the
event of their arrest in Cr.No.36/2022 of Hiriadka
P.S., for the offence punishab le under sections 3(1)(s)
of SC/ST(POA) Act and Sec. 504 and 506 read with
Sec. 34 of IPC.

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

                           JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Jagadeesha B N, learned counsel for

the appellants and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2-Sanjeeva Naik has not appeared

before this court inspite of service of notice on

him.

:: 3 ::

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'

for short), challenging the correctness of the order

dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Principal District

and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.Misc.

No.145/2022, rejecting the appellants' application

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail

in connection with Crime No.36/2022 for the

offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act and Sections

504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The report made by second respondent

shows that the appellants were doing pisciculture

in the pond dug in their land. But according to

second respondent, the appellants dug the pond in

the forest land and in that background there was

some difference between them. On 10.07.2022,

the Department of Fisheries arranged a function :: 4 ::

near the pond and when the second respondent

went to that place at about 10.45am, the

appellants said to have abused him taking the

name of his caste in front of the officers of the

Fisheries Department and the villagers. This was

the reason for registration of FIR against the

appellants.

4. The appellants have produced copy of

report made by appellant No.1 to the police. It

shows that at his instance the police also

registered an FIR in Crime No.37/2022 against the

second respondent. The allegation in the first

appellant's FIR is that the second respondent

demanded money of Rs.2,00,000/- from the first

appellant for allowing him to cultivate the fish in

the pond and when he refused, the second

respondent tried to snatch a gold chain which the

first appellant was wearing and threatened to :: 5 ::

register FIR against him under the provisions of

Atrocities Act.

5. If both FIRs are perused, an inference

can be drawn that probably in connection with

pisciculture, there might have entered some

difference between the appellants and the second

respondent and a quarrel might have taken place

at the time when the function was arranged. In

this view, the allegation made against the

appellants by the second respondent are to be

investigated thoroughly and it is not possible at

this stage to hold that there exists a prima-facie

case against the appellants that they have

committed an offence under the Atrocities Act.

The court below ought to have applied its mind in

proper perspective. Merely because there is a

mention about caste name, it has come to

conclusion not to grant anticipatory bail. It is also

to be noted that the appellants presence can be :: 6 ::

secured for the purpose of investigation at any

time. Therefore the appeal deserves to be

allowed. Hence the following:

ORDER Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.145/2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, is set aside.

In the event of arrest of the appellants by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.36/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) and providing 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 investigating officer for completing the investigation.

:: 7 ::

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

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

(iv) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till completion of the investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-