Karnataka High Court
Shri. Karthik Yadav R vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 989 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. KARTHIK YADAV R
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O SHRI. M. RAMESH
DY RFO, GUNDRE FOREST RANGE
R/AT FOREST QUARTERS
JAKKALLI VILLAGE
BEERAMBALI POST
ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 114.
2. SHRI. BAHUBALI MANEPPNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O. SHRI. KALAPPA
OCCUPATION: FOREST GUARD
Digitally signed by GUNDRE FOREST RANGE
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI R/AT MANIPANAVAR RANGER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF FOREST QUARTERS
KARNATAKA
N BEGUR POST
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 114.
3. SHRI. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O SHRI. LAKSHMAN KAMATE
OCCUPATION: FOREST GUARD
GUNDRE FOREST RANGE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
R/AT MANIPANAVAR RANGER
FOREST QUARTERS
N BEGUR POST
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 114.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANTHARASANTHE P S
SANGURU CIRCLE
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHRI. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O. KARIYAPPA
HOSHALLIHADI
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2022
PASSED BY THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SPL.JUDGE MYSORE
IN CRL.MISC.NO.2196/2022 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT
OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.69/2022 REGISTERED IN
ANTARSANTE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
448,504,506,341,342,302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v)
AND 3(2)(vii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The accused No.2, 4 and 5 have filed this appeal
seeking to set aside order dated 09.11.2022 passed by VI
Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru in Crl.Misc
No. 2196/2022, where under the anticipatory bail petition
filed by this appellants in respect of Crime No. 69/2022, of
Antharasante Police Station, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 448, 504, 506, 341, 342, 302
Read with section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v),
3(2)(vii) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
Prevention of Atrocities Act,1989 came to be rejected.
2. Heard, arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants and learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 state,
in-spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained
absent and unrepresented.
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
3. The case of the prosecution is that:
One Sathisha S/o Kariyappa has filed complaint
stating that, on 10.10.2022 at 12.30 p.m., the forest
officers of Gundre Zone, RFO Amritesh, D.R.F.O Kartik
Yadav, the guards Anand, Bahubali, Ramu, Shekaraiah,
Sadashiva, Manja, Umesh, Sanjay, Rajanayaka, Sushma,
Mahadevi, Ayappa, Somashekar, Tangamani, Siddiq Pasha
suddenly trespassed into the house of the complainant and
ransacked articles and abused him and his younger sister
and asked them to show their father and threatened them
to take their life by shooting with gun and burning their
house by putting petrol and went away. it is further stated
that, at 2.30 p.m., accused have taken his father by
assaulting him and he was not knowing for what reason he
was taken.. Therefore, he did not file complaint. It is
further stated that on the next day i.e on 11.10.2022 at
about 6.30 p.m., his uncle Ravi and Anand, S/o Mara went
there and saw deceased Kariyappa and he was subjected
to ill-treatment by the forest officials and he was unable to
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
walk and therefore, they did not take him and they
intimated the same to the complainant. Thereafter, one
Kavitha who is the relative intimated him about the death
of his father. He went to the police station and he was
informed that his father died in K.R Hospital, Mysuru. He
filed complaint stating that the forest officials in-spite of
knowing that his father is tribal have ill-treated him and
committed his murder. The complaint came to be
registered in Crime No. 69/2022 of Antarasante Police
Station for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)
and 3(2) (vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellants
who were arrayed as accused No.2, 4 and 5 in the FIR,
apprehending their arrest filed Crl.Misc.No.2196/2022
along with other accused seeking anticipatory bail and
same came to be rejected by VI Additional District and
Special Judge, Mysuru by order dated 09.11.2022. The
appellants have challenged the said order in the present
appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that,
the injuries noted in the postmortem report are nine
injuries and they are not sufficient to cause the death of a
person, there are no internal injuries. In the postmortem
report it is mentioned that, there is a blockage of 80 -
90% of Coronary Artery and therefore the death might be
of heart ailment. The Forest officials might have picked the
deceased for making interrogation as he was involved in
forest offences, there is no allegation in the complaint that
the deceased was assaulted by the Forest officials on the
ground that, he belongs to SC/ST. Therefore, there is no
prima facie case to attract offence under Sections 3(2)(v),
3(2)(vii) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and hence the bar
contended in 18 and 18(A) of SC/ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act is not attracted. It is further submission
that, the appellants are ready to co-operate with the
investigation. The appellants being the forest officials can
be secured easily. Without considering all these aspects
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
the Learned Sessions Judge as passed the impugned order
which requires interference by this Court.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and HCGP, this court has
gone through the impugned order, FIR, complaint and
other investigation papers in Crime No 69/2022.
6. The deceased Kariyappa was one of the accused in
FOC 3/2022-23 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 9, 27, 31, 39, 44, 49(B), 51(1) of Wild Life
(protection) Act. In the said crime when accused No.1 and
2 were arrested, they came to know name of the
deceased-Kariyappa. Therefore the Forest officials brought
him for questioning. It is alleged that the Forest officials
including the appellants/Accused No.2, 4 and 5 have
assaulted the deceased and caused his death. The
postmortem report of the deceased reveals that, he has
sustained nine abrasions and they are noted to be anti-
mortem in nature. It is also noted that, the said abrasions
are covered with reddish brown scab. The Doctor who
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
conducted the examination over the dead body of the
deceased has kept his opinion pending for want of
chemical analysis and HPE report. It is also noted in the
post mortem report that there is blockage to the extent of
80-90% of the right artery and 20-30% left artery. What
is the actual cause for the death of deceased can be
ascertained only after final opinion is given by the doctor
after receipt of chemical analysis and HPE report.
7. It is not the case of the complainant that the
deceased was secured by the forest officials as he belongs
to SC/ST, but the forest officials secured the deceased for
interrogation. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said
that there is prima facie case made out against the
appellants for the offence under sections 3(2)(v) and
3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Therefore, the bar contained under section 18 and 18-A of
SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is not attracted. The
appellants/accused No.2, 4 and 5 have undertaken to
cooperate with the police in the investigation and the
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
appellants are working as DRFO and forest guards and
they may be secured for investigation. Without
considering all these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has
passed the impugned order which requires interference of
this court.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
submission of learned counsel for parties, there are valid
grounds for setting aside impugned order and granting
anticipatory bail to the appellants/accused No.2, 4 and 5.
In the result be following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
09.11.2022 passed by by VI Additional District and Special
Judge, Mysuru in Crl. Misc No.2196/2022 is set aside so
for as these appellants are concerned. Consequential the
appellants/Accused No.2, 4 and 5 are granted anticipatory
bail and they are ordered to be released on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr.69/2022 of Antarasante Police
Station, subject to the following conditions:
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
shall execute a personal bonds for a sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)
each with one surety each for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the investigating
officer.
shall voluntarily surrender before the
investigating officer within 15 days from
this date and execute bail bonds and
furnish surety.
shall remain present before the
jurisdictional police station on every Sunday
between 10.00 A.M., to 2.00 P.M., and
mark their presence for a period of two
months or till filing of the final report which
ever is earlier.
shall co-operate with investigation and
make themselves available for interrogation
whenever required.
shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:31331
CRL.A No. 989 of 2023
witness acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade them from disclosing
such facts to the court or to the police
officer.
shall not obstruct or not hamper the
investigation and not to play mischief with
the evidence collected or yet to be collected
by the police.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PNV/RMS
CT:SNN
