Sri Chethan B S vs State By Hiriyur Town P.S
2022 Latest Caselaw 11900 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 16 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1512 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri Chethan B.S.
S/o Shivarudrapp a
Aged about 28 years
R/o Balenahally Villag e
Hiriyur Taluk
Chitrad urg a District-577598.
                                              ...Appellant
(By Sri C. Gopalakrishnamurthy, Advocate)


AND:

1.    State by Hiriyur Town P.S.
      Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor
      Hig h Court Comp lex
      Beng aluru-560001.

2.    Sri Rag havend ra H.A.
      S/o Eranayaka
      Aged about 32 years
      Driver
      R/at Gowd ag ere Villag e
      Sira Taluk
      Tumakuru District-572137.
                                            ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
 R2 served - unrep resented)
                                   :: 2 ::


      This      Criminal      Appeal      is     filed    under    Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
order     passed      by   the    Spl.      2nd    Addl.     District   and
Sessions Judge, Chitrad urga in Crl.Misc. No.830/2022
dated 20.08.2022 by allowing the appeal filed by the
app ellant for the offence p unishable under Sections
323,307,341,504,506              of    IPC      and      Section   3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act and etc,.


      This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders 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 20.8.2022 in Crl. Misc. 830/2022 on

the file of Special, 2nd Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The appellant

applied for anticipatory bail under section 438

Cr.P.C and since the said application stood :: 3 ::

dismissed by the impugned order, this appeal has

been preferred.

2. Heard Sri Gopalakrishnamurthy, learned

counsel for the appellant and the High Court

Government Pleader. It is reported by the High

Court Government Pleader that notice has been

served on the mother of respondent No.2, but

there is no representation from him.

3. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail

in relation to FIR in Crime No. 151/2022 for the

offences punishable under sections 323, 307, 341,

504, 506 of IPC and sections 3(1)(r), (s) and

3(2)(v)(a) of the Atrocities Act. Report was made

by the second respondent to the police stating that

on 26.7.2022 at 1.00 AM he unloaded the chickens

at a shop in the mutton market, Hiriyur and when

he came near Sagar Reddy Hotel, he was

intercepted by the appellant who was driving a

car. The appellant alighted from the car and :: 4 ::

asked the second respondent about his identity.

When the second respondent disclosed his identity,

suddenly the appellant started abusing him in the

name of his caste and assaulted him. It is alleged

that the appellant brought a knife and tried to

inflict injuries on his neck. At that time one

autorickshaw driver interfered to pacify the

situation .

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the entire incident is false. It was the second

respondent who picked up quarrel with the

appellant. FIR in Crime No. 152/2022 clearly

shows that the second respondent tried to dash his

lorry to the appellant for the purpose of killing him

at the instance of one Prabhakar. In this view, the

entire incident as reported to the police by the

second respondent is not believable. The

appellant is always available for investigation if at

all his presence is necessary. The trial court has :: 5 ::

wrongly applied section 18 of the Atrocities Act for

denying anticipatory bail and therefore he argues

for allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, the High Court

Government Pleader opposes bail by submitting

that the second respondent's complaint was the

first one, complaint lodged by the appellant was

subsequent. It is a case of 307, therefore

anticipatory bail cannot be granted till

investigation is over.

6. I have perused both the FIRs. It appears

that there was enmity between the appellant and

Prabhakar. This could be the reason for the

incident to take place. Even though the second

respondent has stated that his caste name was

taken at the time of incident, at this stage it is

difficult to infer that the incident took place in the

background of caste. Thus viewed, section 18 of

the Atrocities Act is not applicable. Although FIR :: 6 ::

was registered for the offence under section 307

IPC, the counter FIR lodged by the appellant also

indicates that the second respondent tried to drive

his lorry on the appellant. The medical certificate

shows that injuries are also simple in nature. In

this view, I do not find existence of prima facie

case. The appellant has made out a reasonable

apprehension of his being arrested. His presence

could be secured for investigation purpose.

Therefore appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence,

the following : -

ORDER

(a) Appeal is allowed.

(b) The order dated 20.8.2022 in Crl.

Misc. 830/2022 on the file of

Special, 2 n d Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is set

aside.

(c) In the event of arrest of the

appellant by the first respondent :: 7 ::

police in connection with Crime

No.151/2022, he shall be released

on bail subject to his executing a

bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and

providing two sureties for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer. The

appellant is also subjected to the

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.

(iv)         He    shall       mark      his    attendance
             before       the      jurisdictional      police
                   :: 8 ::


        station     once    in   a   fortnight
        preferably on Sunday between
        9.00 am and 12.00 noon, till

completion of the investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl/-