Shri Tirakappa S/O Rudrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11725 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100385 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.    SHRI TIRAKAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA JUMMANNAVAR,
      AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
      TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
      PIN 580105.

2.    SHIVAPPA S/O. JUMMAPPA JUMMANNAVAR,
      AGE: 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
      TALUK AND DSITRICT: DHARWAD,
      PIN 580105.

3.    MADEVAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HANDI,
      AGE: 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
      TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
      PIN 580105.

4.    NINGAPPA S/O. SHIVAJI JUMMANNAVAR,
      AGE: 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
      TALUK AND DSITRICT: DHARWAD,
      PIN 580105.

5.  MADIWALAPPA S/O. SHIVAJI JUMMANNAVAR,
    AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. JUMMANAVAR LANE, HANGARKI,
    TALUK AND DSITRICT: DHARWAD,
    PIN 580105.
                                         ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.M.MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                           CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022



AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
     GARAG POLICE STATION, GARAG,
     DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 581105.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS,
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     AT: DHARWAD BENCH,
     PIN - 580011.

2.  SHRI IRAPPA S/O. RUDARAPPA DODAMANI,
    R/O. TIMMAPUR VILLAGE,
    TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD,
    PIN - 582115.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADV. FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14
A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL FILED BY THESE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOs.4 TO 8 BY
SETTING      ASIDE     THE     ORDER      PASSED     IN
CRI.MISC.NO.390/2022 DATED 14.07.2022 PASSED BY II ND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL.JUDGE, AT
DHARWAD, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
CRI.MISC.NO.390/2022 AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NOs.4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 MAY BE ENLARGED ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN GARAG P.S. CRIME NO.77/2022 UNDER SECTIONS
302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)
(va) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED II ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND
SPECIAL JUDGE AT DHARWAD.

       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-
                                    CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022



                            JUDGMENT

challenging the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by

the learned II Additional District and Sessions

Judge & Spl. Judge, Dharwad in Criminal Misc.

No.390/2022 filed under Section 438 of The Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking

anticipatory bail in respect of Garag Police Station

in Crime No.77/2022 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with

Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and under

Section 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST Act',

for brevity) which came to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 and the learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

No.1-State and also the learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, one

Irappa S/o Rudrappa Doddamani resident of

Timmapur village of Dharwad taluk has filed a

complaint stating that his sister Kasturevva got

married to one Ramappa Kelagade (deceased) of

Hangarki village and they have two female

children. It is further stated that the said

Kasturevva had illicit relationship with one

Hanumanthappa Jummanavar-accused No.1 since 4

years and due to the same, her husband was

addicted to alcohol and he used to harass his wife

and children, after consuming alcohol. The

Hanumanthappa- accused No.1 had given some

money to deceased Ramappa as advance and kept

him for work into his Grain Machine. That on

16.05.2022, the Ramappa's brother's wife has

called to his mobile and told that the Ramappa was

suffering from stomach ache. Therefore, the

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

complainant called the said person and when

enquired, she was told that Ramappa died and his

funeral will be at 11:00 p.m, in Hangaraki village.

Thereafter, the complainant and elders of the

village went to Hangaraki village to attend the

funeral, at that time, the 2 n d daughter of his sister

namely Sonu aged about 13 years came over to

complainant and told that his father was murdered.

Then the complainant has asked his sister

regarding the cause of death of Ramappa, but she

was not disclosed anything and he was not allowed

to go near Ramappa's dead body and hurriedly

dead body was taken to burial ground. When the

dead body was on funeral pyre then also not

allowed the complainant to see the dead body

properly and poured kerosene and set fire. After

seeing all this when complainant asked his sister,

she told that when Ramappa was not been to work,

accused No.1-Hanumanthappa came over to their

house and took the Ramappa to work by scolding

and bearing him. At about 5:00 p.m, accused

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

No.1-Hanumanthappa came and told that her

husband Ramappa was suffering from stomach

ache and need to take him to hospital and asked

her to come. Therefore, she and her husband's

brother Shettappa and Kareppa together went in

accused No.1-Hanumantappa's vehicle. When they

reach near Kelageri, they found her husband was

unconscious and further she said that her husband

died near Kelageri bridge while going to the

hospital. She also requested the complainant to

leave this mater and stated that if the incident is

disclosed the villagers will not allow her to lead

her life. After inquiry in the village, the

complainant suspected the death of Ramappa and

therefore, he filed a complaint and the said

complaint came to be registered in Crime

No.77/2022 for the offenses punishable under

Sections 302, 201 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under

Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The

appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 apprehending their

arrest have filed Criminal Misc. No.390/2022

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be

rejected by the learned II Additional District &

Sessions & Spl. Judge, Dharwad vide order dated

14.07.2022. Therefore, the appellants/accused

Nos.4 to 8 have challenged the said impugned

order in the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants

would contend that, the alleged incident occurred

on 16.05.2022 and the complainant came to be

filed on 18.05.2022. It is his further submission

that in the remand application dated 05.06.2022 in

respect of accused No.1 there are no allegations of

involvement of these appellants in the alleged

crime. It is his further submission that in the

remand application dated 14.06.2022 in respect of

accused Nos.2 and 3, the appellants have been

arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 8 but there are no

averments of involvement by these appellants in

the alleged crime. The Trial Court without

considering all these aspects, has passed the

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

impugned order which requires interference by this

Court. The charge sheet has been filed against

accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences punishable

under Sections 120(B), 201, 279, 304(A), 323,

355, 448, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of

IPC, under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of

SC/ST Act and under Sections 3 read with Section

181, 5 read with Section 180 and 134 read with

Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The accusation

levelled against these appellants are that, they

were their in the tractor and also they have

participated in the cremation of the deceased

Ramappa. It is his further submission that accused

No.1 has been granted bail by the Sessions Court

and accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted bail

by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.100322/2022.

With this he prayed to allow the appeal.

       5.   Per        contra,          learned         High      Court

Government         Pleader       for    respondent         No.1-State

would contend that, as one of the offences alleged

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

against the appellants is under the SC/ST Act the

Trial Court considering bar under Section 18(A) of

the SC/ST Act has rightly rejected the anticipatory

bail petition of the appellants and therefore, the

impugned order does not requires any interference

by this Court. It is his further submission that the

charge sheet has been filed and it discloses the

involvement of these appellants and their presence

in the tractor and also they participating in the

cremation of the dead body of the deceased

Ramappa. It is his further submission that if the

appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will

threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2

contended that the Special Court considering the

involvement of these appellants in commission of

the offences under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST

Act and invoking bar contained under Section

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

18(A) of the SC/ST Act has rightly rejected the bail

petition of the appellants which does not require

any interference by this Court. The offence alleged

against the appellants are heinous offences. It is

his further submission that appellants/accused

Nos.4 to 8 were there in the tractor driven by

accused No.9 intentionally, rashly and made

deceased to fall down who sustained injuries and

who died on the way to hospital and all the

accused burnt the dead body without intimating

the death and accident to the Police. If the

appellants are granted bail, they will threaten the

complainant and other prosecution witnesses and

with this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State, this Court has perused the

impunged order and charge sheet papers.

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

8. The case came to be registered in Crime

No.77/2022 against the accused No.1

Hanumantappa on the complaint filed by Irappa

S/o.Rudarappa Dodamani regarding death of the

deceased Ramappa. The FIR came to be registered

against the accused No.1 Hanumantappa. There

are no allegations of involvement of accused Nos.4

to 8 who are appellants herein in the complaint

filed by the said Irappa Dodamani. Even in the

remand application of Accused No.1 there are no

allegations of involvement of these appellants in

the commission of the crime. In the remand

application of accused Nos.2 and 3, these

appellants have been arrayed as appellant Nos.4 to

8 but in respect of that there are no mentioning of

any participation of these appellants in the

commission of the crime. It is mentioned in the

further statement of the complainant, that his

brother deceased Ramappa fell from the tractor

and died, and without informing the same to the

Police accused Nos.2 and 3 have conspired with

- 12 -

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

accused No.1 and burnt the dead body of the

deceased Ramappa. At the time of passing the

impugned order, there were no allegations of

involvement of these appellants in causing

accident or death of the deceased Ramappa.

Merely because the case is registered under

Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, the learned Special

Judge invoked the bar under Section 18(A) of the

SC/ST Act and has passed the impunged order

rejecting the petition of all the appellants seeking

anticipatory bail. Even on perusal of the charge

sheet papers, there are no role of these appellants

in causing the accident and injuries to the

deceased Ramappa. The said tractor was driven by

accused No.9, when the deceased fell from the

tractor and sustained injuries and died when he

was being shifted in the bike of CW16. These

appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 stated to have

participated in cremation of the deceased

Ramappa, where his dead body was burnt.

Therefore, at this state, it cannot be said that the

- 13 -

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

Provisions of SC/ST Act are attracted against these

appellants, therefore, the bar contained under

Section 18(A) is not attracted and without

considering all these aspects, the learned Special

Judge has passed the impugned order which

requires interference by this Court. Other offences

alleged against the appellants are not punishable

with death or imprisonment for life. There are no

criminal antecedents of the appellants. The main

apprehension of the prosecution is that, if the

appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will

threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses. The said objection can be met with by

imposing stringent conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court is

of the view that there are valid grounds for setting

aside the impugned order and granting anticipatory

bail to these appellants/accused Nos.4 to 8 subject

- 14 -

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order

dated 14.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.

No.390/2022 by the learned II Additional District

and Sessions & Spl. Judge, Dharwad is set-aside.

Consequently, the petition filed by appellants

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., stands allowed and

the appellants/accused Nos.4 and 8 shall be

released on bail in the event of their arrest in

Crime No.77/2022 of Garag 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 the Jurisdictional Court.

ii. The appellants shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

- 15 -

CRL.A No. 100385 of 2022

iii. The appellants shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

iv. The appellants shall attend the jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RH