Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Purushotham on 2 August, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26922
CRL.A No. 754 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIRISAVE POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RENUKA RADHYA R D, HCGP)
AND:
1. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O KABBALI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
Digitally signed by HASSAN - 573 116.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. NAGARAJA
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O KABBALI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SAGAR N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26922
CRL.A No. 754 of 2022
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THIS APPEAL B. SET ASIDE AND
CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL DATED 03.01.2022 PASSED IN
CRL.MISC.No.1599/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HASSAN THEREBY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED U/S.504, 341, 307, 506 R/W SEC.34
OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) 2015
OF HIRISAVE POLICE STATION. C. DIRECT THAT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT No.1 BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED
TO CUSTODY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The State has preferred this appeal, praying to
set-aside the order dated 03.01.2022, passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1599/2021 by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan and cancel the bail.
2. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for
the appellant - State and learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
3. Respondent No.1 is accused No.2 in Crime
No.154/2021 of Hirisave Police Station registered for the
offences under Sections 504, 341, 307 and 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
NC: 2023:KHC:26922
CRL.A No. 754 of 2022
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter
referred to as "the Act").
4. Respondent No.1 - accused No.2 apprehending his
arrest in the said crime has filed Crl.Misc.No.1599/2021
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail.
The said petition came to be allowed and respondent No.1
has been granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the State is in appeal.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
contend that the averments made in the complaint would
clearly attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the Act. As there is a bar under Sections 18 and
18A(2) of the Act, the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
cannot be entertained.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1
would contend that there is no specific allegation against
respondent No.1 - accused No.2 in the complaint to
NC: 2023:KHC:26922
CRL.A No. 754 of 2022
attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the Act.
8. In view of the said contention, it is to be ascertained
as to whether the averments of the complaint attracts the
offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act
against respondent No.1 - accused No.2.
9. In the complaint, it is stated that there was a dispute
between the complainant and accused No.1 - Sri.Umesha
regarding compound wall and there was a quarrel earlier.
It is further stated that on 19.11.2021 at about 12.10
pm., when the complainant and two others were
proceeding in front of the School, at that time accused
Nos.1 to 4 came near him and restrained him. At that
time, accused No.1 - Sri.Umesha asked him why he has
given complaint to Panchayath regarding the compound
wall and made him to fall on the ground and sat on his
chest and with an intention to kill him, pressed his neck.
At that time two persons pacified the quarrel. At that
time, respondent No.1 - accused No.2 and accused
NC: 2023:KHC:26922
CRL.A No. 754 of 2022
Nos.3 and 4 assaulted him with hands and abused him
taking his caste name and threatened to kill him, if he
quarrels with accused No.1 - Sri.Umesha.
10. The said allegation of abuse touching caste made in
the complaint against accused Nos.2 to 4 is omnibus
allegation. There is no specific allegation against each of
the accused ie., accused Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, among
accused Nos.2 to 4, it cannot be said that who has abused
the complainant taking his caste name with what words.
More so, in a copy of the charge sheet produced along
with the appeal, in Column No.17, it is only alleged against
accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have assaulted witness
No.1 on his body and there is no accusation against
respondent No.1 - accused No.2 of abusing the
complainant touching his caste.
11. When there is no prima facie case made out to
attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the Act, the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A(2)
of the Act is not attracted, in view of the decision of the
NC: 2023:KHC:26922
CRL.A No. 754 of 2022
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
Vs. Union of India and Others reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 727.
12. The learned Sessions Judge considering all these
aspects, has rightly entertained the petition of respondent
No.1 and granted him anticipatory bail by the impugned
order.
13. There are no grounds made out for setting-aside the
impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
