Karnataka High Court

Mr Pratap Kumar Vaddi vs State By Girinagar Police Station on 30 August, 2023

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC:31032
                                                         CRL.A No. 623 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                               BEFORE

                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 623 OF 2023

                      BETWEEN:

                            MR.PRATAP KUMAR VADDI
                            AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                            S/O VADDI SRI RAMA MURTHY
                            No.1314, SRI NILAYAM 15TH CROSS
                            NEAR SUNDER MAHAL KALYANAMANTAPAM
                            GIRINAGAR, 2ND STAGE
                            BENGALURU - 560 085.
                                                                   ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI ARVIND KAMAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                          SRI HIREMATH VIJAY NAGAYYA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI       AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1.    STATE BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION
                            REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                            BENGALURU-560 001.

                      2.    MR.D.SRINIVAS
                            S/O LATE DUMMAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                            R/AT NO.150, 5TH MAIN ROAD
                            DOMLUR, A.K. COLONY
                            BENGALURU - 560 071.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
                          R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2023:KHC:31032
                                         CRL.A No. 623 of 2023




     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL     JUDGE       BENGALURU       (CCH-71)    IN
CRL.MISC.NO.2007/2023 AND ETC.,


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


                         JUDGMENT

1. The appellant - accused No.1 has filed this appeal

seeking setting aside the order dated 18.03.2023 passed

in Crl.Misc.No.2007/2023 by LXX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru,

whereunder, the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant

- accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.356/2022 of

Girinagar Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) 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.

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1 - State.

3. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2

remained absent and un-represented.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2022 at

about 11:00 a.m., the complainant came near the house

of accused No.1, so as to collect the balance money from

accused No.1, as per instructions of accused No.1. At that

time, accused No.1 came out of the house and abused in

filthy language with reference to caste and also caused

threat to take away his life. Further, accused No.2 also

intentionally insulted by taking the name of the caste and

caused threat to take away his life, through whatsapp call.

5. On the basis of the said complaint of respondent

No.2, a case came to be registered against the appellant -

accused No.1 and another in Crime No.356/2022 of

Girinagar Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

appellant - accused No.1 apprehending his 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. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant would

contend that there was a money transaction between

accused No.2 and Sri.Sanjive Khanna and the said

Sri.Sanjive Khanna has withdrawn excess amount from the

account of accused No.2 and he had promised to pay the

excess amount received by him to Sri.Pratap Kumar,

Sri.Srinivas Rao and Sri.Srinivas D. He further submits

that as the police were helping the said Sri.Sanjive

Khanna, accused No.2 sent a letter to the Station House

Officer and Police Sub-Inspector of Upparpet police station

dated 01.10.2022, whereunder, it is mentioned that there

is a threat of foisting a false case of atrocities against

accused No.2 by one Sri.Srinivas D. He further submits

that as apprehended in the said letter dated 01.10.2022,

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

the said Sri.Srinivas D has filed a complaint against

accused No.2 and also this appellant - accused No.1,

which appears on the face of it is false. No incident has

taken place as alleged in the complaint. The complaint is

filed only to see that accused No.2 pays the money to the

complainant and others. Considering all these aspects,

there is no prima facie case against appellant - accused

No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act

and the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not applicable.

The Special Court has not considered the said

representation dated 01.10.2022 sent by accused No.2 to

the police, while passing the impugned order. With this,

he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail

to the appellant - accused No.1.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

would contend that on perusal of the averments of the

complaint, there is a prima facie case against the appellant

- accused No.1 for the offences under Section 3 of the Act.

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

The appellant - accused No.1 has abused the complainant

touching his caste in abusive words and gave life threat to

him. As there is a prima facie case, a petition under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C cannot be entertained as there is a

bar under Section 3 of the Act. He further submits that

there are three eye witnesses to the incident. Considering

all these aspects, the Special Court has rightly rejected the

anticipatory bail petition of the appellant - accused No.1.

With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State, this Court has gone through the

impugned order, F.I.R, complaint and other documents

produced.

9. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on

15.12.2022 against this appellant - accused No.1. In the

complaint, it is alleged that this appellant - accused No.1

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

abused the complainant taking his caste name and gave

him threat. In the said complaint also, it is alleged that

accused No.2 over whatsapp call, abused the complainant

taking his caste name and threatened him. Prior to filing

of the complaint dated 15.12.2022, accused No.2 has

made a representation to the Station House Officer and

the Police Sub-Inspector of Upparpet Police Station on

01.10.2022. In the said representation the financial

transactions between accused No.1 and one Sri.Sanjive

Khanna and three others including the complainant are

stated. In the said representation, it is also stated that

there is a threat to accused No.2 of foisting a false case of

atrocity by one Sri.Srinivas D. As the threat anticipated

by accused No.2 in the said representation dated

01.10.2022, a complaint has been filed by the said

Sri.Srinivas D not only against accused No.2, but also

against this appellant - accused No.1. Considering the

said representation dated 01.10.2022 and the averments

of the complaint indicate that there are financial

transactions between accused No.2 and the complainant

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

and others with regard to the said financial transactions

and repayment of money by accused No.2. It appears

that the said complaint has been filed by the said

Sri.Srinivas D to recover money from accused No.2. The

appellant - accused No.1 is no way concerned with the

said financial transactions between accused No.2, the

complainant and others. The appellant - accused No.1 is

an Auditor and friend of accused No.2. Considering all

these aspects, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is

a prima facie case against appellant - accused No.1 under

Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18

of the Act is not attracted. Without considering all these

aspects, learned Special Judge has passed the impugned

order which requires interference by this Court. In the

result, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

18.03.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.2007/2023 by the

LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

NC: 2023:KHC:31032 CRL.A No. 623 of 2023

Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. The appellant - accused

No.1 is granted anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest

in Crime No.356/2022 of Girinagar Police Station, subject

to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant - accused No.1 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.1 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 bond and furnish the surety.

(iii) The appellant - accused No.1 shall co-operate with the investigating Officer in the investigation.

(iv) The appellant - accused No.1 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.