Karnataka High Court
Jyotib S/O Balaram Mokashi vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazipresided Byjmkj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100304 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. JYOTIB S/O. BALARAM MOKASHI,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARJUNWAD VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI -591309.
2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. SHANAR GUGGARI,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARJUNWAD VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI -591309.
Digitally signed by
3. VINAYAK S/O. KADAPPA GUGGARI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
AGE: 19 YEARS,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.09.05
11:58:36 +0530
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARJUNWAD VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI -591309.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HUKKERI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
2. MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA SANKAPPAGOL,
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ARJUNWAD VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI -591309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO. 32/2023 OF HUKKERI PS ON THE FILE
OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT
BELAGAVI AND SPECIAL COURT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 323, 504, R/W 149 OF IPC
AND THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va),
3(2)(v).
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos.1,
3 and 4 have filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST Act', for short)
seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.32/2023 of Hukkeri
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 326, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 149
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 391)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v)
SC/ST Act.
2. In support of their appeal, the appellants have
contended that they have not committed the alleged
offences and they have been falsely implicated. Even if the
entire allegations in the charge sheet are accepted on its
face value, there is no prima facie material to connect the
appellants to the alleged offences. The case of the
prosecution is created and concocted. Appellants are
permanent residents of the address given in the cause
title. They are ready and willing to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed and prays to allow the appeal.
3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
the appellants have relied upon the following decisions:
i) Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs.Union of India and
others1 (Prathvi Raj Chauhan)
ii) Deepak W/o Mallu Kankonkar Vs.State of
Karnataka2 (Deepak)
(2020)2 SCC (Crl.) 657
Crl.P.No.100606/2022 DD 13.04.2022
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
iii) Sharanappa S/o Gaibanna Bochin Vs.The State
of Karnataka3 (Sharanappa)
4. Learned HCGP submitted oral objections stating
that on 18.03.2023, there was Laxmidevi Jatra in
Arjunwada village of Hukkeri, Belagavi district.
Complainant-Mallappa Sankappagol, his mother-
Shankuntala and brother-Pradeep sent to the said Jatra.
At about 4.00 p.m., the Laxmidevi Deity was being carried
in bamboo palanquin in order to leave her at the border.
Along with Laxmidevi Deity, Ingloba Deity was also carried
by the devotees. While Laxmidevi Deity was carried in a
bamboo palanquin, Ingloba Deity was carried in the hands
of devotees by passing it from one to the other. When
both Deities were near Laxmidevi Temple, complainant-
Mallappa and Sachin Sidram Koli, who belong to Scheduled
Caste also reached the said spot. While others were
carrying Laxmidevi Deity, complainant-Mallappa took
Ingloba Deity in his hands so as to swing it before passing
to others. The relevant portion in Kannada reads thus, .......
Crl.P.No.200324/2017 DD 07.03.2017
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
4 UÀÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ®QëöäÃzÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹ÃªÉÄ PÀ¼ÄÀ »¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ®QëöäÃzÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
Dr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àa£À ¹zÁæªÄÀ PÉÆý E§âgÆ
À PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄ
¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 4.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁjUÉ ®QëöäÃzÉëAiÀÄ UÀÄrAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ zÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
Dr¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ £Á«§âgÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ EAUÀ¼Æ
É Ã¨Á£À£ÀÄß Dr¸ÉÆÃt CAvÁ ºÉÆÃV £Á£ÀÄ
EAUÀ¼ÉÆèÁ£À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ Dr¸ÀÄwÛzÝÉ Ã£ÀÄ..........
4.1. At this stage, accused No.1 to 3, who belong to
majority community, intervened. They snatched the Igloba
Deity from the hands of complainant-Mallappa and said
that they belong to scheduled caste and they should not
touch the Deity and they should know their place, (K ºÉƯÁå
¸Àƽ ªÀÄUÀ£À £ÀªÀÄä zÉêÀgÀ ¤ÃAiÀiÁPÀ »r¢ ºÉƯÉÃgÀ zÉêÀgÀ ªÀÄÄlÖ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ ¤ÃªÉ®è
EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ C¯Éè EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀ). So saying, all of them dragged the
complainant-Mallappa and CW5-Sachin towards Mokashi
Galli. Accused No.6-Jyotiba Mokashi picked up a tumbler
(vÀA©UÉ) and threw it towards Sachin Koli. It caused injury to
his forehead. He also assaulted Sachin Koli with hands. All
the accused persons assaulted the complainant-Mallappa
on his cheek and back. One person kicked him from back.
Accused No.2-Abhijeet Ghorpade assaulted the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
complainant with a rod on his head and caused bleeding
injury. Immediately he fell down. CW7 Mutteppa Pundalik
Koli, CW6-Lagamanna Yallappa Talawar intervened and
rescued them. They brought them i.e., the injured towards
the temple. CW3-Kiran Basappa Koli took them to Hukkeri
Government Hospital on his motorcycle. After first aid,
they were sent to Belagavi Hospital in 108 ambulance.
4.2. Based on the complaint, case was registered
against accused Nos.1 to 6 and investigation was taken
up. After detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed
against accused Nos.3, 5, 6 and separate charge sheet is
filed against Child In Conflict with Law ('CICL', for short).
The charge sheet makes out a strong prima facie case
against the appellants. From the date of offence, the
appellants have absconded. In the light of prohibition
contained in Section 18-A(2) of the SC/St Act, appellants
are not entitled for anticipatory bail and prays to reject the
appeal.
5. Heard arguments and perused the records.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
6. Thus, it is the definite case of the prosecution
that complainant-Mallappa and CW5-Sachin belong to
Scheduled Caste, whereas the appellants belong to
majority community. During the Laxmidevi Jatra of
Arjunwada of Hukkeri, when complainant-Mallappa and
CW5-Sachin were holding Ingloba Deity, which was being
passed from one devotee to others, appellants along with
the other accused abused them in filthy language referring
to their caste and assaulted them causing grievous
injuries. Appellants are seeking anticipatory bail
contending that they have been falsely implicated and no
prima facie case is made out against them.
7. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that
charge sheet filed against the appellants makes out a
strong prima facie case and in the light of prohibition
contained in Section 18-A(2) of the SC/ST Act,
anticipatory bail cannot be granted to them.
8. Before appreciating the facts of the case and
grounds urged by the appellants while seeking anticipatory
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
bail, it is relevant to note that Section 18-A(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provides that the
provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable to a
case, where the accused persons are alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under the provisions of
SC/ST Act. In other words, where the accused persons
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under
the provisions of SC/ST Act, they are not entitled for
anticipatory bail. However, in Chandra Poojari vs. State
of Karnataka Seshadripuram police, Bangalore4, the
Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court held that where the
allegations does not attract the provisions of SC/ST Act,
the prohibition under Section 18A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not applicable.
9. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan also the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that where a prima facie case is
not made out, then Section 18 and 18-A have no
application. In the light of the ratio in Prathvi Raj
1997(4) Kar. L.J.81
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
Chauhan, it is necessary to examine whether the
prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the
appellants so far as Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii),
3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, is concerned. Thus, in
Prathvi Raj Chauhan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that though there is prohibition under Section 18-A(2) of
SC/ST Act for granting anticipatory bail, the Court can
exercise the said powers if the prosecution has failed to
make out a prima facie attracting the offences under the
SC/ST Act. The prohibition under Section 18-A(2) would
not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail to the
accused, when no prima facie case is made out.
10. In the present case, the materials placed in the
charge sheet prima facie establish that the incident has
taken place in a public place and in the full public view
during Jatra of Laxmidevi. Both the complainant-Mallappa
and CW5-Sachin belong to scheduled caste, whereas the
appellants belong to majority community. Charge sheet
indicates that they were not only abused by referring to
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
caste, but also assaulted with hands, a tumbler and an
iron rod. In the circumstance, the provisions of SC/ST Act
are attracted and a prima facie case is made out against
the appellants. In Sharanappa, although it is held that
even a CICL is entitled for anticipatory bail, in the light of
prima facie case made out against all the accused
including the appellants and in the light of prohibition
contained in Section 18-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, this Court
is of the considered opinion that he is also not entitled for
anticipatory bail. Deepak case relates to quashing of
criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it has
no relevance to the present case.
11. Thus for the above reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that appellants are not entitled for
relief of anticipatory bail and accordingly the following:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants/accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act is
rejected.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9763
CRL.A No. 100304 of 2023
The impugned order dated 18.05.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.381/2023 on the file of the III Addl.District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
