Sri. K H Manikanta S/O K H ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12059 Kant

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                                       BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100404 OF 2022

                              BETWEEN:

                              SRI. K. H. MANIKANTA
                              S/O. K. H. CHANNABASAPPA,
                              AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. P.S.I,
                              KURUGODU POLICE STATION,
                              KURUGODU,
                              R/O. W.NO. 2, MOKA MAIN ROAD,
                              VTC SANGANAKAL VILLAGE - 583101,
                              TAL. AND DIST. BALLARI.

                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                              (BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)


                              AND:

                              1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                    THROUGH KURUGODU POLICE STATION,
                                    KURUGODU,
           Digitally signed
                                    NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           by ROHAN

ROHAN
           HADIMANI T
           Location: HIGH
                                    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
           COURT OF
HADIMANI
T
           KARNATAKA
           DHARWAD
           Date:
                                    BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
           2022.09.26
           15:06:51 +0530

                              2.    SRI. VANNURSWAMY S/O. LATE RUDRAPPA
                                    AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                                    R/O. KOLURU VILLAGE, WARD NO.2,
                                    TAL. KURUGODU,
                                    DIST. BALLARI - 583101.

                                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
                              SRI. ROJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R2)
                                     -2-




                                          CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CRIME     NO.149/2022         REGISTERED        FOR      THE    OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, BY THE
KURUGODU POLICE ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the sole accused

challenging the order dated 26.08.2022 passed in

Criminal Miscellaneous No.699/2022 by the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari,

whereunder the petition filed by the

appellant/accused 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.149/2022

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

of Kurugod Police Station, Ballari registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506

of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3(1)(r) and

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 learned counsel for the appellant,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that

respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint stating

that he is an agriculturist, belongs to Valmiki

caste, eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture

work. On 10.08.2022 in between 9.30 to 10.00

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

a.m., when the complainant was near the Koluru

Gram Panchayath Office, the appellant/accused

abused him in filthy language. The

appellant/accused also abused in filthy language

on mother of the complainant and assaulted on the

cheek and insulted him before the public, knowing

fully well that the complainant belongs to Valmiki

caste. Even the appellant/accused threatened the

complainant with dire consequences. It is further

stated that on previous occasion also there was a

quarrel between the appellant/accused and the

complainant and after the interference of the

elders, the appellant/accused sought apology of his

mistake before the complainant. Keeping that

incident in the mind, the appellant/accused with

deliberate intention assaulted the complainant and

abused him before the public and insulted him by

misusing his Police powers. The said matter was

even telecasted in the electronic media. Though

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

the public tried to pacify the quarrel, the

appellant/accused assaulted the complainant. The

said complaint came to be registered in Crime

No.149/2022 of Kurugod Police Station, Ballari for

the aforesaid offences. The appellant/accused

apprehending his arrest filed Criminal

Miscellaneous No.699/2022 seeking anticipatory

bail and the same came to be rejected by the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by

order dated 26.08.2022. Therefore, the

appellant/accused No.1 has challenged the said

order in the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the

appellant/accused would contend that there was a

law and order problem in the village and therefore

this appellant/accused went there to control the

situation. It is his further submission that the

background of the alleged incident has not been

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

narrated in the complaint. The entire averment of

the complaint does not contend the allegation of

abuse by this appellant/accused touching the caste

of the complainant. The averments of the

complaint only contain the abusive words used by

this appellant/accused to the complainant and

assault by him to his cheek. Therefore on perusal

of the averments of the complaint, the provisions

of Section 3 of SC and ST(POA) Act are not

attracted. The bar contained under Section 18 of

the SC and ST (POA) Act is also not attracted. It

is his further submission that there is no mention

in the averments of the complaint that the

appellant/accused knew the caste of the

complainant. Without considering all these aspects

the learned Sessions Judge has passed the

impugned order which requires interference by this

Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would

contend that the investigation is still in progress.

On perusal of the averments of the complaint it

clearly attracts the offences under Section 3 of SC

and ST (POA) Act. It is his further submission that

the video clipping received by him containing the

conversation between the complainant and

appellant/accused which has been produced before

this Court, which clearly attracts the offences

alleged against this appellant/accused. As the

investigation is still in progress, if the

appellant/accused is granted anticipatory bail, he

being a Police Officer may hamper the

investigation and tamper the prosecution

witnesses. Considering all these aspects, learned

Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned

order which does not call for any interference by

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-

complainant would contend that there was a

previous incident took place between the

complainant and the appellant/accused in which at

the advice of the elders this appellant/accused has

sought pardon of the complainant and therefore,

the appellant/accused was wrecking vengeance

against this complainant. It is his further

submission that the appellant/accused knew

respondent No.2-complainant prior to the incident

and that he belongs to scheduled caste. The

contentions of the complaint clearly attracts the

offence under Section 3 of SC and ST (POA) Act.

The Trial Court considering the same and invoking

the bar contained under Section 18 of the SC and

ST (POA) Act has rightly rejected the bail petition

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

of this appellant/accused, which does not call for

any interference by this Court. With this, he

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having regard to the submissions made

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, the impugned order and the other documents.

8. In the complaint it is stated that the

complainant-respondent No.2 belongs to Valmiki

caste. It is the accusation that this

appellant/accused abused the complainant in filthy

language taking the name of mother of the

complainant and assaulted him on his cheek and

gave him threat. There is no averment in the

complaint that the appellant/accused knew that

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

this complainant belongs to Valmiki caste and

coming under the Scheduled Caste. The

accusation against this appellant/accused is abuse

of the complainant in filthy language by taking the

name of his mother and assaulting him. There is

no allegation against this appellant/accused

abusing the complainant taking the name of his

mother by touching the caste and therefore there

is no prima facie case to attract the offences under

Section 3 of SC and ST(POA) Act.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi

Raj Chauhan Vs. Union Of India and Others reported in

(2020) 4 SCC 727 has held that when no prima facie

case is made out in the complaint, then the bar

contained under Section 18 of the SC and ST(POA)

Act is not attracted.

The offences alleged against the

appellant/accused are not punishable with death or

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

imprisonment for life. The appellant/accused

being a Police Officer can be secured easily for

investigation and trial. The Investigating Officer

being a Dy.Sp., a superior rank officer than this

appellant/accused, therefore there is no question

of hampering the investigation and tampering the

prosecution witnesses. The main apprehension of

the prosecution is that, if the appellant/accused is

granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the

investigation and tamper the prosecution

witnesses, can be met with by imposing certain

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 to grant anticipatory

bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

- 12 -

CRL.A No. 100404 of 2022

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order

dated 26.08.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.699/2022 by the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ballari, is set aside. Consequently,

the petition filed by appellant/accused under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C., stands allowed. The

appellant/accused is ordered to be released on bail

in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 149/2022 of

Kurugod Police Station, Ballari 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

- 13 -

CRL.A No. 100404 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 Police 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

SMM