Karnataka High Court
Mr Srikanth B V vs State By Yelahanka Police Station on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. SRIKANTH B V
S/O VENKATAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A B-6, C M C ROAD,
NEAR LAKSHMI COMPLEX,
YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
(REPRESENTED BY LD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S BENGALURU-560009.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. MANJUNATH
KARNATAKA S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A NO.64, 8TH CROSS,
RBI COLONY, PAPANNA BLOCK,
GANGANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
THIS CRL.APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU
AND DIRECT THE YELAHANKA P.S., TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.365/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.506, 504, 323 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 OF YELAHANKA P.S.,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The sole accused has filed this appeal seeking setting
aside the order dated 03rd January, 2023 passed by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No.12400 of 2022, whereunder the
anticipatory bail filed by the appellant-accused in respect of the
crime No.365 of 2022 of Yelahanka Police registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, came to be rejected.
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for
the appellant; learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2;
and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2
filed a complaint stating that he is the State General Secretary
of Republican Party of India and he belongs to Scheduled Caste
(Adi Karnataka). It is further stated that on 11th December,
2022, at about 10.00 pm, he went to the house of the Party
worker, viz. Darshan, situate at Maruti Nagar, Yelahanka on his
Karizma motorbike and parked the motorbike in front of the
house of Darshan. Thereafter, the complainant and the said
Darshan came out to get Milk and water, at that time a person
was moving the said Karizma motorbike of the complainant and
the complainant questioned the said person as to why he is
moving the motorbike aside and the said person in turn, asked
the complaint as to why he has parked the bike on the road to
which the complainant informed the said person that he has
come to Darshan's house and showed his Party Identity Card.
The said person hurled abuses using his caste name and also
assaulted the complainant causing injury on his nose.
Thereafter, the complaint came to know that the said person's
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
name is Srikanth and he belong to upper caste. The complaint
came to be registered in Crime No.365 of 2022 by Yelahanka
Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellant-accused
apprehending his arrest, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.12400
of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be
rejected by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru by order dated 03rd January,
2023, which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
the appellant-accused was not knowing the complaint and they
are strangers. The appellant do not know the caste of the
complainant. The identity card of the Republican Party of India
does not show the caste to which the complainant belongs to.
When the appellant-accused does not know the caste to which
the complainant belongs to, then the question of abusing the
complaint touching his caste, does not arise. The alleged
incident occurred on 11th December, 2022 at 10.15 p.m. and
the complaint came to be filed on the next day at 1.30 p.m.
and there is delay in filing the complaint. The learned counsel
submits that on perusal of the entire complaint, the offences
under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act, does not attract at at.
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
The alleged incident is a road rage between the complainant
and the appellant-accused. The complaint is making misuse of
his Caste and has filed false complaint against the appellant-
accused and without considering all these aspects, the learned
Sessions Judge/Special Judge has passed the impugned order,
which requires interference in this appeal and accordingly prays
to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant-
accused.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that the complainant-respondent No.2
questioned the appellant-accused for moving aside his bike and
at that time there was a quarrel between them and the
appellant-accused on coming to know the caste of the
complainant had abused him touching his caste and assaulted
him and caused injury, which averments would clearly attract
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and there is a bar
under Section 18 of the said Act to entertain the application
seeking anticipatory bail and therefore the learned Sessions
and Special Judge has passed the impugned Order which does
not call for interference in this appeal and hence, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit
that the appellant-accused abused the complainant touching his
caste and therefore, the said aspect of the matter attract
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act and there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act to
entertain this appeal. The learned Counsel also submits that
the complainant-respondent No.2 has sustained injury to his
nose and considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions
and Special Judge has passed the impugned order, which does
not call interference in this appeal and hence prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has
gone through the impugned order, First Information Report and
the complaint.
8. The appellant-accused is not known to the respondent
No.2-complainant. The respondent No.2 is a stranger to the
appellant-accused. The respondent No.2, voluntarily, shown
his identity card of Republican Party of India to the appellant-
accused. It is alleged that on seeing the said identity card, this
appellant-accused came to know that the complainant belongs
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
to the Scheduled Caste and abused him by touching his caste.
To ascertain the said aspect, this Court has asked the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 to produce the copy of the said
identity card of the respondent No.2. The learned counsel for
respondent No.2 has pleaded his inability to produce the same.
The identity cards of political parties, normally, does not
contain the caste name of the Member of their Party. The trial
Court, merely stating that the said Political Party is established
by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, presumed and assumed that its workers
belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. There is no basis
for such a presumption/assumption drawn by the trial Court.
The alleged incident is a petty road rage with regard to parking
of the motorbike. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said
that there is prima facie case against the appellant-accused for
offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The other
offences alleged against the appellant-accused are bailable and
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The
appellant-accused has undertaken to co-operate with police for
investigation. Without considering all these aspects, the
learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order, which
requires interference by this Court.
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant-accused has made out grounds for setting aside the
impugned order and to grant anticipatory bail by putting him in
terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 03rd January,
2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.12400 of 2022 by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at
Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, petition filed by the
appellant is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.365 of 2022 of Yelahanka Police
Station, subject to following conditions:
i. The appellant-accused shall execute a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of
the Investigating Officer.
ii. The appellant-accused shall voluntarily appear
before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from
this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.
iii. The appellant-accused shall remain present before
the Police station concerned on first and third
CRL.A No.95 of 2023
Sunday of every month between 10.00 am to 02.00
pm and mark his attendance for a period of two
months or till the filing of the final report, whichever
is earlier.
iv. The appellant-accused shall cooperate with
investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
v. The appellant-accused shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to the Police Officer.
vi. The appellant-accused shall not obstruct or hamper
the Police investigation and not to play mischief with
the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the
Police.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN
