Karnataka High Court

Hanumantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2023

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC:29308
                                                        CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1292 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   HANUMANTHA
                           S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
                           AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

                      2.   KASTHURI
                           W/O HANUMANTHA
                           AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

                      3.   PRAKASH
                           S/O HANUMANTHA
                           AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

                           ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                           DOOR No.4-32/1, KAVOOR
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA            4TH MAIL ROAD
MURTHY RAJASHRI
                           MANGALURU - 575 015.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                      ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA

                      (BY SRI LEELESH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           BY KAVOOR POLICE STATION
                           REPRESENTED BY STATE
                           PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                           HIGH COURT COMPLEX
                           BANGALORE - 560 001.

                      2.   RANGAPPA BASAPPA PUJAR
                           S/O BASAVARAJA POOJARA
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2023:KHC:29308
                                    CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023




     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
     RESIDING AT JANATA FLAT
     DEVAGIRI POST AND VILLAGE
     NEAR DC OFFICE, HAVERI TALUK
     DISTRICT - 581 110.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1
 R2 - SERVED)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF THE SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND     SESSIONS      JUDGE,    D.K.,    MANGALURU       IN
CRL.MISC.No.530/2023 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DIRECTING
RESPONDENT No.1 TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
PERSONS ON BAIL IN CRIME No.60/2023 REGISTERED BY THE
KAVOOR POLICE, MANGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 467, 471, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC R/W
SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989.

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

                        JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants - accused Nos.1

to 3, praying to set-aside the order dated 23.06.2023

passed in Crl.Misc.Case No.530/2023 by the II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru

whereunder, the petition filed by the appellants - accused

Nos.1 to 3 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime

No.60/2023 of Kavoor Police Station, Mangaluru City for the

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 504

and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), came to be

rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants - accused

Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State.

3. Respondent No.2 is physically present before the Court

and prays not to grant bail for the appellants - accused

Nos.1 to 3, as there is threat to him.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that, respondent No.2

filed a complaint on 06.06.2023 against the appellants -

accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same came to be registered in

Kavoor Police Station in Crime No.60/2023 for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 504 and 506

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

r/w Section 34 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) &

3(2)(va) of the Act.

5. In the said complaint, it is stated that the appellants

created the documents in order to grab the property of the

complainant's parents and when he went to ask them about

the same, the appellants abused him taking his caste name

and threatened him and abused him with filthy words. The

appellants who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3

apprehending their arrest, filed a petition 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 appellants - accused Nos.1

to 3 would contend that the property which the complainant

is claiming, belongs to one Smt.Girija, the second wife of the

complainant's father Sri.Basavaraja Poojara and it has been

granted to her under Ashraya Yojana. He further submits

that the said Smt.Girija and her husband Sri.Basavaraj

Poojara executed Will and bequeathed the said property in

favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2. It is his further submission

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

that by virtue of the said Will, the appellants are residing in

the said house. The dispute regarding the property has been

given the colour of criminal complaint. The averments of the

complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the

offence under Section 3 of the Act. The abuse stated to

have been made as stated in Paragraph No.6 of the

complaint is not in public view and there is no mention of

any person present at the time of the alleged incident.

Without considering 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 and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State would contend that there is

creation of documents by the appellants in order to grab the

property of the complainant's parents. The complainant and

his parents belonged to Scheduled Caste. The complaint

averments reveal that the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3

abused the complainant in vulgar words taking his caste

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

name which attracts the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the Act. Therefore, the petition under Section 438

of Cr.P.C cannot be entertained as there is a bar under

Section 18 of the Act. The Investigating Officer has

recorded the statement of three witnesses who have stated

regarding grabbing of the property by the appellants. With

this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. Respondent No.2 who is present before the Court

submits that the property belongs to his parents and the

appellants created the documents in order to grab the

property and when he went to ask them, they abused in

vulgar words taking his caste name and threatened him. He

further submits that there is a threat to his life, if the

appellants are granted anticipatory bail.

9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State, this Court

has perused the averments of the complaint and the

impugned order.

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

10. As per the averments of the complaint, there is a

dispute regarding the property between the complainant and

the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3. The complainant

claimed that the property belongs to his parents and after

their death, he has inherited the same. The appellants -

accused Nos.1 to 3 claim the said property under a

registered Will said to have been executed by the father and

step-mother of the complainant.

11. The alleged abuse as stated in Paragraph No.6 of the

complaint by the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, taking his

caste name in filthy words is an omnibus allegation. There is

no specific allegation against each of the appellants -

accused Nos.1 to 3. At this stage, it cannot be said that all

of the accused persons used the same words at the same

time. The very aspect at this stage shows that there is no

prima facie case against each of the appellants for the

offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the

Act. The other offences alleged against the appellants are

not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As there

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

is no prima facie case for the offence under Section 3 of the

Act, the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act is not

attracted. Without considering these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge passed the impugned order which requires

interference by this Court. The apprehension of threat by

the complainant can be made with, by imposing the

stringent conditions;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

23.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.530/2023 by the

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,

Mangaluru is set-aside. Consequently, the petition filed by

the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C stands allowed and they are ordered to be released

on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.60/2023 of

Kavoor Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) each, with one

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and execute the bail bonds and furnish the surety.

(iii) The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

(v) The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.