Karnataka High Court
Siddu Sahukar @ Siddaram And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Venkatesh Naik Vntj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200247 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDU SAHUKAR @ SIDDARAM
S/O. LATE KASHINATH DEVATAKAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT SERVANT
RESIDENT OF GOBBUR (B) VILLAGE, AFZALPUR
KALABURAGI.
2. SUBHASHCHANDRA
S/O. CHOKLU RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF GOBBURWADI TANDA
GOBBUR (B) VILLAGE, AFZALPUR
KALABURAGI.
3. RAVISHANKAR
S/O. APPANNA KULALI
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
Location: HIGH RESIDENT OF 1/38, SHARANABASAVESHWAR TEMPLE
COURT OF CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE TALAKERI
KARNATAKA GOBBUR (B) VILLAGE, AFZALPUR
KALABURAGI.
4. MAHANT
S/O. BASAWARAJ DEVATHKAL
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF TALAKERI GOBBUR (B) VILLAGE
AFZALPUR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH YELI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION BAZAR POLICE, KALABURAGI
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURAGI - 585 301.
2. ASHOK
S/O. PRABHULING BHAJANTRI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
OCCUPATION: LABOUR
RESIDENT OF GOBBUR (B) VILLAGE
AFZLAPUR, KALABURAGI
NOW RESIDENT OF NEAR MEDICARE HOSPITAL
SANGTRASWADI
KALABURAGI - 585 303.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING PATIL, ADDITIONAL S.P.P., FOR R-1, &
SRI RAVI B. CHAWHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF
THE SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2023 IN CRL.MISC. NO.1339/2023
REJECTING THE PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT
NO.1 POLICE STATION TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS IN THE EVENT
OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.138/2023 OF STATION BAZAR
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504 AND 506
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION
3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR, ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The appellants have filed this appeal under Section
14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act')
praying to set aside the order dated 7-8-2023 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.1339 of 2023 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, and further to
direct respondent No.1-Station Bazar Police, Kalaburagi, to
enlarge the appellants on bail in the event of their arrest
in Crime No.138 of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellants and the learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,
on 20-7-2023 at about 3:30 P.M., when the complainant
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
was working in Gas Agency situated behind United
Hospital at Kalaburagi, accused No.1 and three others
came in a car, called the complainant and when the
complainant went near the car, accused No.1 asked him to
sit in the car to meet his grand-mother. Accordingly, the
complainant boarded the car, at that time, accused No.1
slapped him and when the complainant enquired him as to
why he slapped him, accused No.1 abused the
complainant in filthy language, intentionally insulted him
to provoke his breach of peace and he also enquired the
complainant about the whereabouts of his parents. When
the complainant showed his inability to say about the
whereabouts of his parents, accused No.1 once again
assaulted him with hands and also threatened to call his
parents and inform them to cast their votes in their
favour. Thus, the complainant lodged a complaint before
the respondent-Police.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended
that the appellants are falsely implicated in the case, they
have not committed any offence as alleged by the
complainant, there are no injuries to the complainant,
there is delay of five days in lodging First Information
Report and the complaint has been lodged by misusing the
provisions of the Act. The appellants are ready to abide by
any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence,
he prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State has filed statement of objections
and contended that there is a Bar under Section 18 of the
Act and hence, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
The contents of the complaint clearly disclose that it
attracts the offences under the said Act. Hence, he prayed
for dismissing the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
reiterated the contentions taken up by the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants and learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor, there is no doubt that the case is
registered against the appellants invoking the provisions of
the Act. No doubt, there is a Bar under Section 18 of the
Act. The learned Special Court dismissed the petition on
the ground that there is a Bar under Section 18 of the Act.
It is also important to note that amendment was also
made to the Act inserting Section 18A of the Act.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN v. UNION OF INDIA reported
in (2020) 4 SCC 727 at paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 held
as under:
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
"8. This Court in Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder
Singh, has observed thus : (SCC p. 522, para 4)
"4. The High Court has not given any finding in
the impugned order that an offence under the
aforesaid Act is not made out against the
respondent and has granted anticipatory bail,
which is contrary to the provisions of Section 18
of the aforesaid Act as well as the aforesaid
decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar
case. Hence, without going into the merits of the
allegations made against the respondent, we set
aside the impugned order of the High Court
granting bail to the respondent."
9. Concerning the provisions contained in Section
18-A, suffice it to observe that with respect to
preliminary inquiry for registration of FIR, we
have already recalled the general Directions 79.3
and 79.4 issued in Subhash Kashinath case. A
preliminary inquiry is permissible only in the
circumstances as per the law laid down by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalita Kumari
v. State of U.P., shall hold good as explained in
the order passed by this Court in the review
petitions on 1-10-2019 and the amended
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
provisions of Section 18-A have to be interpreted
accordingly.
10. Section 18-A(i) was inserted owing to the
decision of this Court in Subhash Kashinath,
which made it necessary to obtain the approval
of the appointing authority concerning a public
servant and the SSP in the case of arrest of
accused persons. This Court has also recalled
that direction on Review Petition (Crl.) No. 228
of 2018 decided on 1-10-2019. Thus, the
provisions which have been made in Section 18-
A are rendered of academic use as they were
enacted to take care of mandate issued in
Subhash Kashinath which no more prevails. The
provisions were already in Section 18 of the Act
with respect to anticipatory bail."
9. Having considered the factual aspects of the
matter and on perusal of the complaint, it appears that
accused No.1 insisted the complainant to cast vote in their
favour. It is further alleged that, as the complainant failed
to disclose the whereabouts of his parents, accused No.1
assaulted him and intentionally insulted him to provoke his
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
breach of peace by taking up his caste name. On reading
of the entire complaint, it is clear that no specific abuse
was made by taking up the complainant's caste name.
Further, the incident has taken place on 20-7-2023 and
the complaint was lodged on 25-7-2023. Therefore, there
is delay in filing the complaint, that too, after lapse of five
days and the delay has not been properly explained by the
complainant.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN stated supra has held that, if
there is no prima-facie material to attract the ingredients
of the SC/ST Act, pre-arrest can be granted. In the
instant case, at this juncture, no prima-facie material is
made out and only general allegations have been made
against the appellants. Hence, the appellants are entitled
for bail. Further, looking into any angle, the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the material available on
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
record and hence, it requires interference. Hence, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Criminal appeal is allowed. The respondent-Police
Station are directed to release the appellants on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.138 of 2023 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
subject to the following conditions:
i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond
in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one
lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of Investigating
Officer/Station House Officer;
ii. The appellants shall surrender themselves
before the Investigating Officer/Station
House Officer within ten days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6694
CRL.A No. 200247 of 2023
iii. The appellants shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
iv. The appellants shall appear before the trial
Court on all dates of hearing, and
v. The appellants shall mark their attendance
before the Investigating Officer/Station
House Officer on first and sixteenth day of
every month between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00
P.M. for a period of six months or till filing of
the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
