Karnataka High Court
Paramappa S/O. Kariyappa Kambli vs State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100110 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. PARAMAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA KAMBLI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GARJINAL, TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
2. BALAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA KAMBLI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Digitally signed
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
by J MAMATHA R/O. GARJINAL, TQ. KUSTAGI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
J KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
MAMATHA BENCH,
DHARWAD.
Date:
3. MALINGARAYA S/O. PARAMAPPA KAMBLI,
2023.04.13
16:49:41 +0530
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GARJINAL, TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TAVARAGERA POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-2-
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-584131.
2. AANJANEYAGOUDA S/O. MANAGOUDA
POLICE PATIL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GARJINAL, TQ. KUSTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583277.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND
SHRI. SACHIN C. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(2)
OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT SEEKING TO GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS-ACCUSED
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT-POLICE TO RELEASE
APPELLANTS-ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 AND 4 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT
OF THEIR ARREST IN TAVARAGERA POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.08/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2) (va) OF SCHEDULED CASTES
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND THE SAME
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
10.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Appellants-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 being aggrieved by
rejection of their anticipatory bail application passed by
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Crl.Misc.126/2023
dated 01.03.2023, preferred this appeal.
2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks
as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of
prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on
21.01.2023 at about 5:40 p.m, the brother of complainant
came to the house and informed that cattle of complainant
entered into the agricultural land of accused No.1 for grazing
crops and accused No.1 has tied she-buffalo in his land. The
complainant and his brothers went to the land of accused No.1
and asked the accused to release their tied she-buffalo, but
accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
and abused the complainant filthy language by taking his caste,
accused No.4 slapped the complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2 by
means of clubs assaulted on the head of complainant thereby
caused bleeding injuries, accused No.3 assaulted the
Basavanagouda over his head by means of stone, accused No.4
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
assaulted Duruganagouda over his head, further accused Nos.8
and 9 assaulted on complainant and his brothers with their
hands and all of them have administered threat to take away
the life of complainant. The injured complainant and his
brothers were shifted to the hospital. On receiving MLC
information, the Tavaregera Police came to the hospital
wherein, the complainant filed the complaint. On the basis of
said complaint, the case is registered in Tavaregera P.S crime
No.8/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/W Sec.149 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va)
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act'). On
these allegations, investigation was carried out and on
completion of investigation filed charge-sheet.
4. In response to the notice, learned High Court
Government Pleader appeared for respondent No.1-State and
Shri S.C.Angadi, learned counsel appeared for respondent
No.2.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State filed objections opposing the bail
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
application contending that the statement of witnesses and the
injured followed with wound certificate would go to show that
there are sufficient prima-facie material evidence against
appellants for their active participation in commission of
offences causing injuries to the complainant and his brothers.
The appellants were absconding from the date of incident and
they were not available at the time of investigation. In terms of
Section 18 of the Act, there is legal bar for entertaining the
anticipatory bail petition. Therefore, on these grounds prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides.
7. On perusal of the charge-sheet materials produced
by learned counsel for appellants, it would go to show that on
the strength of complaint filed by one Anjaneyagouda S/o
Mananagouda Police Patil criminal law was set into motion by
registering the case in Tavaregera P.S crime No.8/2023 for the
aforesaid offences. The prosecution alleges that quarrel took
place between complainant and accused, since sheep and cow
of accused No.1 entered the land of complainant for grazing
crops and elders of the village have advised accused No.1. On
21.01.2023, accused No.1 tied she-buffalo of complainant,
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
since it has entered the land for grazing. When the same was
questioned by complainant, quarrel took place between
complainant and accused. Due to assault by means of club and
stone as referred above, complainant and his brothers
sustained injuries. Accused abused the complainant in filthy
language by taking his caste with an intention to humiliate him
in a public view.
8. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.3 and 4 who
were arrested have been granted regular bail by the trial Court.
Appellants-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are shown as absconding in
the charge-sheet filed on 15.03.2023. The alleged incident in
question took place on 21.01.2023.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State contended that anticipatory bail petition
is not maintainable in view of bar contemplated under Section
18 of the Act.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for appellant has
argued that the bar under Section 18 of the Act will not apply,
if complaint does not make out a prima-facie case for
applicability of the provisions of the Act. In this context of the
matter it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
Court in PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS (2020) 4 SCC 727, wherein it is observed at
paragraph 32 as under:
"32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and
anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of
Mishra J., has stated that in cases where no
prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a
complaint, the Court has the inherent power to
direct a pre-arrest bail."
11. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in SUBBANNA
@ SUBRAMANI M. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE BY
THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT AND ANOTHER [ILR 2021 KAR 515] by
following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan's case has held that in a given case where the
complainant does not make out a prima-facie case for
applicability of the provisions of the Act, a petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be entertained. However, it
depends on the facts of each case. In view of principles
enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is evident that
there is no legal bar to entertain the petition under Section 438
of Cr.P.C., if complaint does not make out a prima-facie case
for applicability of the provisions of the Act.
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
12. On perusal of the complaint allegations, it would go
to show that all the accused abused the complainant and his
brother in filthy language and the said act of abusing is alleged
to be accused being enraged on complainant informing to the
elders of the village about their sheep entering to the land of
complainant for grazing. The quarrel took place due to accused
No.1 tying she-buffalo of complainant and also due to previous
enmity for the same reason. There are no specific allegations in
the complaint against each of the accused persons as to which
accused persons used peculiar word so as to humiliate them in
a public view. Learned counsel for appellant relied on
coordinate bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition
No.7382/2017 between Manjunatha S/o Narasanna and
others Vs State of Karnataka and others, dated
23.10.2017. In the said judgment also when there are no
specific allegations against accused abusing with an intention to
humiliate them in a public view held that the bar under SC and
ST Act will not apply and anticipatory bail petition can be
maintained.
13. In respect of IPC offences, there are allegations in
the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4 for having assaulted
by means of club and stone over the head of complainant and
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
his brothers. The wound certificate of complainant-
Anjeneyagouda, Basanagouda and Duruganagouda would go to
show that they have suffered cut lacerated and contusion
injuries, further the said injuries are opined to be the simple in
nature. They have been discharged from the hospital. Whether
those injuries have been suffered by the complainant and his
brothers are due to overt act of appellant and other accused is
a matter of trial.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced
under memo documents and photographs of the injured.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that
accused have absconded from the process of law and also in
the habit of committing similar type of offence. In support of
such contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Virupakshappa Gouda Vs State of Karnataka
in Criminal Appeal No.601/2017, dated 28.03.2017,
wherein it has been observed and held that filing of charge-
sheet does not in any manner lessen allegations made by
prosecution. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court has earlier
declined to enlarge the appellants on bail and laid guidelines in
para No.16 while considering bail application. There cannot be
any dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
the said decision. Looking to the above referred facts and
circumstance of the case referred above, I am of the opinion
that appellants are entitled for anticipatory bail. Consequently,
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.
Appellants-accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are ordered to be
released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with
Crime No.8/2023 of Tavaregera police station, subject to
following conditions:
i) Appellants are ordered to be released on
bail on executing personal bond for a sum
of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for
likesum amount.
ii) The appellants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when called for
the purpose of investigation.
iii) The appellants shall not leave the
jurisdiction of trial Court without its prior
permission.
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2023
iv) The appellants shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
AM/-
