Karnataka High Court
Shivaswamy S vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1323 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHIVASWAMY S
S/O SOMBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT 49/A 11TH CROSS
GANESHA LAYOUT
KODIGEHALLI BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHANDAN B K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B SIDDESHWARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY KODIGEHALLI P S.,
BENGALURU REPRESENTED
BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA HIGH COURT COMPLEX
MURTHY RAJASHRI BANGALORE -01.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT # 5, 10TH A CROSS
JAKKURU VILLAGE, YELAHANKA
HOBLI AND TALUK
BANGALORE -560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R D, HCGP FOR R1
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
THIS CRL.A.IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.1
ON BAIL IN CR.No.91/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(f),
3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT OF KODIGEHALLI P.S.,
BANGALORE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF THE KODIGEHALLI POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN THE SAID CRIME, AFTER TAKING
SUFFICIENT SURETY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused No.3,
praying to set-aside the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.6185/2022, seeking anticipatory
bail in respect of Crime No.91/2022 of Kodigehalli Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f),
3(1)(g) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which came to
be rejected.
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -
State.
3. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has
remained absent and unrepresented.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2022 at
11.00 A.M., the complainant started to construct a house
on his site No.701 situated in Sy.No.11 of Kodigehalli
Village. At that time, in order to dispossess him from the
property, the appellant - accused No.3 along with other
accused have wrongfully restrained him, abused in filthy
language and threatened to take away his life. On the
complaint of respondent No.2, a case came to be
registered in Kodigehalldi Police Station in Crime
No.91/2022 for the offences under Sections 341, 504, 506
r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and
3(1)(r) of the Act.
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
5. The appellant - accused No.3 apprehending his
arrest, filed Crl.Misc.No.6185/2022 under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be
rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
there is a property dispute pending in the Civil Court
between accused No.1 and the complainant and accused
No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.1256/2022 pending on the
file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. It is further
submitted that the dispute between accused No.1 and the
complainant is, claiming the same portion of the property
as their respective sites. It is his further submission that,
earlier, the complainant had given a complaint to
Kodigehalli Police, for which, an endorsement has been
issued dated 09.03.2022 stating that the dispute between
the complainant and the appellant - accused No.3 is civil
dispute and they have to resolve the same in the Civil
Court in pending O.S.No.1256/2022. It is his further
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
submission that as there is a civil dispute with regard to
the property between accused No.1 and the complainant,
there is no question of any interference or dispossessing
the complainant from the property and therefore, the
offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Act are
not attracted.
7. He further submitted that the Trial Court itself held in
Paragraph 13 of its order, that there is no prima facie case
made out to attract Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Act. The Special Court without considering that there is a
civil dispute between accused No.1 and the complainant,
has passed the impugned order which requires
interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow
the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that the averments made in the complaint
which is referred to in Paragraph 13 of the impugned order
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
clearly goes to show that this appellant - accused No.3
and accused No.1 tried to interfere with the possession of
the complainant over his property which attracts the
offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Act.
The averments of the complaint clearly attracts the said
offences. As there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act, the
Special Court has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail
petition, by the impugned order which does not call for
any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the Learned counsel for the appellant
and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court
has gone through the impugned order, F.I.R, complaint
and other documents produced by the appellant.
10. The complainant - respondent No.2 had earlier made
a complaint to Kodigehalli Police against this appellant -
accused No.3 and his wife Smt.Jyothi and others and the
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
police after making enquiry on the complaint of
respondent No.2, issued endorsement dated 09.03.2022
stating that the dispute is pending in O.S.No.1256/2022 in
the suit filed by accused No.1 against the complainant and
another and the parties have to resolve their dispute in
the said civil suit. There is a signature on the said
endorsement of the complainant for having received the
same. Thereafter, on 17.03.2022, he made a
representation to the Inspector General of Police, Civil
Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru which was
forwarded to Kodigehalli Police Station and a complaint
came to be registered on 21.04.2022 in Crime No.91/2022
for the offences referred to supra.
11. It appears from the said aspect that the complainant
after he having received the said endorsement dated
09.03.2022, the police have not registered a case against
this appellant - accused No.3 and the other accused has
filed a complaint against them again before Kodigehalli
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
Police, stating that an incident has taken place on
31.01.2022. Even though the incident has taken place on
31.01.2022, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on
17.03.2022. Respondent No.2 earlier had filed a complaint
to the Additional Police Commissioner, North West Range,
Bengaluru on 09.02.2022. In the said complaint, there is
a mention that on 26.01.2022 at about 11.00 A.M, this
appellant and his wife along with seven to eight others has
stopped him from going to his site. Even though the said
complaint is dated 09.02.2022, there is no mention of the
present incident dated 31.01.2022. From the said aspect,
it appears that the present complaint by respondent No.2
is afterthought, filed after receiving the endorsement
dated 09.03.2022 only to implicate the appellant and
others.
12. The Special Court in the impugned order at
Paragraph 13, after referring to the averments of the
complaint, has held that there is no prima facie case made
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
out to attract Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The
said paragraph reads thus;
"After meticulously going through the averments
made in the complaint it is forthcoming that the
accused persons mentioned in the complaint said to
be abused complainant by saying that ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ
¸ÀªÀðtÂÃAiÀÄgÁzÀ PÁgÀt ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw JA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄzsÉå ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ¸Àj¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁV ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÄÊ°UÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ, J¸ï.¹.J¸ï.n ¸ÀÄÖ¦qï UÀ¼ÀÄ, ErAiÀÄmïì,
gÁ¸À̯ï, ¨Á¸ÀÖgïØ JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ eÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤A¢¹
QüÀÄ eÁwAiÀĪÀgÀ £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÉÆÃPÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ µÀqÀåAvÀgÀ gÀƦ¹
£À£ÀߣÀÄß ¤ªÉñÀ£À¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀºÁPÀĪÀ ºÀÄ£ÁßgÀ ªÀiÁr ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ
ºÉÆÃUÀzÀAvÉ zËdð£Àå J¸ÀVzÁÝgÉ."
13. The Special Court in the impugned order in Paragaph
No.14 taking into consideration the averments of the
complaint has come to the conclusion that accused No.1
and this appellant - accused No.3 along with others has
stopped the complainant - respondent No.2 from entering
his site and it attracts the offence under Section 3(1)(g) of
the Act. There is a Civil dispute with regard to the
property of respondent No.2 and accused No.1 in
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
O.S.No.1256/2022, pending on the file of the City Civil
Court, Bengaluru, wherein, an exparte interim injunction
has been granted in favour of accused No.1 against this
respondent No.2, restraining him from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and demolishing the compound wall of the suit
schedule property, till filing of written statement.
14. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the
alleged act of accused Nos.1 and 3 stopping the
complainant from entering the property attracts the
offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Act.
Therefore, at this stage, there is no prima facie case to
attract the said offences. Therefore, the bar under
Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act is not attracted.
15. Without considering these aspects, the learned
Special Judge has passed the impugned order which
requires interference by this Court. The other offences
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
alleged against the appellant - accused No.3 are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the
result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
08.07.2022 passed by LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) in
Crl.Misc.No.6185/2022 is set-aside. The petition of the
appellant - accuse No.3 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,
stands allowed. The appellant - accused No.3 is ordered to
be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.91/2022 of Kodigehalli Police Station, subject to the
following conditions;
(i) The appellant - accused No.3 shall execute
a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(One lakh only) with one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer.
(ii) The appellant - accused No.3 shall appear
before the Investigating Officer within two
weeks from the date of receiving a certified
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27323
CRL.A No. 1323 of 2022
copy of this order and execute the bail bond
and furnish the surety.
(iii) The appellant - accused No.3 shall
co-operate with the Investigating Officer for
the investigation.
(iv) The appellant - accused No.3 shall not
tamper with the prosecution witnesses either
directly or indirectly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
