K T Thimmappa @ Kenkerathimmappa ... vs State By Pavagada Police Station
2022 Latest Caselaw 11752 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

K.T. Thimmapp a
@ Kenkerathimmapp a Thimmanna
S/o Late Thimmanna
Aged about 76 years
R/at 5-10C, Dokkalap alli Village
Vadd arahatti Taluk
Ananthapura District
And rap rad esh-515001
                                           ...Appellant
(By Sri Sreenivasan M.Y., Advocate)

AND:

1.    State by Pavag ad a Police Station
      Tumkuru District
      Rep. by SPP, HCK
      Bang alore-560001

2.    Srinivasa D.G.
      Aged about 38 years
      Police Sub Insp ector
      DCRE Cell, Tumkuru Unit
      Tumakuru-572101
                                         ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
    Sri C. Jag adish, Advocate for R2 - Absent)

     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
order p assed by the III Addl. District and Sessions
                                :: 2 ::


Judge,   Tumakuru,   d ated  03.06.2022                passed    in
Crl.Misc.No.664/2022 and etc,.

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

                          JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Sreenivasan M Y, learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Sri C.Jagadish, learned standing counsel for

respondent No.2 has not appeared before the

Court.

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 order dated 03.06.2022

passed by the III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Tumakuru rejecting the appellant's petition

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

3. On 06.12.2021, an FIR was registered

against the appellant for the offences punishable

under Sections 196, 197, 198, 199 and 420 of IPC :: 3 ::

and Section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST Act on the

allegation that he gave false information that he

belonged to 'Bhovi' caste for obtaining a caste

certificate.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant actually hails from

Madakasira Taluk of Ananthapur District in Andhra

Pradesh State. The appellant belongs to

Odde/Vaddi caste. He came to Pavagada for coolie

work.

5. He submitted that actually the

appellant's son obtained caste certificate to the

effect that he belonged to scheduled caste for the

purpose of securing a job in KSRTC. The appellant

is aged 76 years. He did not obtain false

certificate. Odde/Vaddi is the synonym for 'Bhovi'

caste in Karnataka and in this view, the appellant

has not committed any offence and therefore

anticipatory bail ought to have been granted.

:: 4 ::

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that the appellant himself applied for

caste certificate on 07.09.2015 and it was issued

showing that the appellant belongs to 'Bhovi' caste

which comes under scheduled caste. It is the

further submission of the learned HCGP that the

caste Odde/Vaddi is classified as other backward

classes in Andhra Pradesh State.

7. Having heard both sides, it is to be

stated that in a circumstance like this, the offence

under the Atrocities Act does not get attracted. It

appears that Odde/Vaddi is a synonym for 'Bhovi'

and because Bhovi caste is classified under

schedule caste in Karnataka, the appellant might

have applied for caste certificate.

8. In a similar circumstance, this court has

taken a view in Crl.A.No.1361/2021 that the

offence under Section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST Act is not

constituted. A perusal of the impugned order :: 5 ::

shows that the trial court has not applied its mind

whether the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of

SC/ST Act is made out or not. It has wrongly

come to a conclusion that Section 18 of SC/ST Act

is a bar. Added to this, the appellant's age is 76

years and this could have been one of the factors

for the trial court for granting anticipatory bail

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In this view, I find

that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence

the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 03.06.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.664/2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside. Application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.256/2021, :: 6 ::

he shall be released on bail subject to his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

(i) He shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

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

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

Copy of this order along with order in

Crl.A.No.1361/2021 shall be forwarded to the

trial Court for guidance.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-