Shri Adil Pasha S/O Mabusab vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11925 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100392 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
      SHRI. ADIL PASHA S/O. MABUSAB
      AGE. 36 YEARS,
      OCC. BUSINESS/ SITTING PRESIDENT OF
      GRAM PANCHAYAT MUSTUR,
      R/O. 2ND WARD, NEAR GUDDEKAL,
      MUSTUR VILLAGE,
      TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL
      PIN CODE. 583231.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THROUGH GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE
      SUB INSPECTOR,
      REPTD. BY ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      SPP OFFICE, DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
2.    SHRI. YARISWAMI S/O. NAGESHAPPA
      AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR,
      R/O. KONTOJI, TQ. KARATAGI,
      DIST. KOPPAL-583229.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N. K. ADV. FOR
 SRI.S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R2)
                                -2-




                                     CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF THE
SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 10.08.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT     AND     SESSIONS      JUDGE,   AT   KOPPAL    IN
CRL.MISC.NO.692/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
PRESENT      CRIMINAL       APPEAL    BY   ENLARGING      THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST ON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN
GANGAVATHI RURAL CIRCLE PS CRIME NO.0199/2022 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S THE SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 (U/S
3(1) (r), 3(2) (va), 3(1)(s) AND U/S 506, 34, 504 OF IPC 1860
IN SO FAR AS PRESENT APPELLANT IS CONCERNED.
    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by accused No.1

challenging the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in

Criminal Miscellaneous No.692/2022 by the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,

whereunder, the petition filed by this appellant and

another 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 Crime No.199/2022 of Gangavathi Rural

Police Station registered for the offences

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter

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

3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST

(POA) Act', for brevity), came to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on

01.04.2022 at about 12.40 p.m., when the

complainant and his friends namely Srinivas,

Hanumanth and Manjunath were standing near

Mustur Grama Panchayath by talking, at that time,

the accused persons came there and picked up

quarrel with the complainant in view of the

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

previous enmity and abused the complainant in

filthy language and they have also abused the

complainant by touching his caste name and both

the accused have also gave threat to their lives

with dire consequence. The said complaint came

to be registered in Crime No.199/2022 of

Gangavathi Rural Police Station for the aforesaid

offences. The appellant who is arrayed as accused

No.1 along with accused No.2 apprehending their

arrest filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.692/2022

seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be

rejected by the learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Koppal by order dated 10.08.2022.

The appellant has challenged the said order in the

instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that the alleged incident has occurred on

01.04.2022 and the complaint came to be filed on

03.07.2022 and there is a delay of three months in

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

filing the complaint and there is no proper

explanation in the complaint for the delay. It is

his further submission that the accusations of

abusing the complainant and touching the caste of

the complainant by accused Nos.1 and 2 is

omnibus and there is no specific overt acts alleged

against each of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is his

further submission that there was a dispute

between the complainant and the accused with

regard to a tender and therefore, the complainant

has filed a false complaint against them. The Trial

Court without considering all these aspects has

passed impugned order which requires interference

by this Court. It is his further submission that

accused No.2's appeal has been allowed by this

Court and he has been granted anticipatory bail

and the appellant No.1 is also placed similarly to

that of accused No.2 and therefore, he is entitled

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

for grant of anticipatory bail. With this, he prayed

to allow the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2

would contend that the averments made in the

complaint prima facie attracts the offences under

the SC & ST (POA) Act alleged against the

appellant. Therefore, the bar contained under

Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act is attracted.

Considering the said aspect, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail

petition of the appellant/accused No.1 by the

impugned order which does not requires any

interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader would contend that the

investigation is still in progress. The Trial Court

considering the averments of the complaint has

rightly passed the impugned order which does not

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

call for interference by this Court. The appellant is

not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the

ground of parity since the accused No.2 has been

granted anticipatory bail on the ground that he

was not on the spot at the time of the incident and

he has taken plea of alibi. With this, he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

7. Having regard to the arguments

submitted by learned counsel for the appellant,

learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State, this Court has gone through the

complaint, FIR and the impugned order.

8. The accusation against accused Nos.1 and

2 in the complaint is that on 01.04.2022 at about

12.40 p.m., when the complainant was with his

friends, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 came

there and abused him touching his caste and gave

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

him life threat. The said accusation of abusing the

complainant by accused Nos. 1 and 2 is omnibus

allegation. There is no specific mentioning in the

complaint that which accused has abused the

complainant and with what words. It cannot be

said that both the accused at the same time used

the same words. More so, there is a grudge by this

complainant against the accused as per the

averments of the complaint. The alleged incident

has occurred on 01.04.2022 and the complaint has

been filed on 03.07.2022 and there is more than

three months delay and there is no proper

explanation in the complaint for the delay.

9. Looking to the averments of the

complaint, at this stage, it cannot be said that

there is a prima facie case against this

appellant/accused No.1 for the offence under

Section SC & ST (POA) Act. Therefore, bar

contained under Section 18 of SC & ST (POA) Act

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

is not attracted. Without considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed

the impugned order which requires interference by

this Court. The main apprehension of the

prosecution is that, if the appellant/ accused No.1

is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the

investigation, tamper the prosecutions witnesses

and flee from justice can be met with imposing

stringent conditions.

10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances

of the case, this Court is of the view that there are

valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order

and granting anticipatory bail to the

appellant/accused No.1 subject to certain terms

and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following:

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order

dated 10.08.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.692/2022 by the learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Koppal, is set aside insofar as

appellant/accused No.1 is concerned.

Consequently, appellant/accused No.1 is granted

anticipatory bail and he shall be released on bail in

the event of his arrest in Crime No.199/2022 of

Gangavathi Police Station, subject to the following

conditions:

  i.     The appellant shall execute a personal
         bond     for    a    sum           of    Rs.1,00,000/-
         (Rupees        One    Lakh          Only)      with    one
         surety     for       the           likesum      to     the
         satisfaction         of       the        Investigating
         Officer.

 ii.     The appellant shall voluntarily appear

before the Investigating Officer within

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 100392 of 2022

fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

iii. The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.

iv.    The   appellant    shall       not    directly    or
       indirectly     make      any         inducement,
       threat    or   promise        to     any   witness

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating Officer.

v. The appellant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RH