Sri Umesh vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 1314 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                       CRL.A No. 138 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2023
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI UMESH
                         S/O A.V.DODDAMUNIYACHARY
                         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

                   2.    SRI CHANDRACHARY
                         S/O.A.V.ODDAMUNIYACHARY
                         AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

                   3.    SRI SATHISH
                         S/O.A.V.DODDAMUNIYCHARY
                         AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
                         ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
                         DODDABAJANEMANE ROAD
                         WARD No.27, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN
                         CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
                                                            ...APPELLANTS

Digitally signed   (BY SRI. NATARAJ SHARMA S, ADVOCATE)
by SANDHYA S
Location: HIGH     AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S
                         CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
                         REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                         HIGH COURT COMPLEX
                         BENGALURU.

                   2.    SRI SHANKAR
                         S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                         R/A HOUSE NO.459/1
                              -2-
                                      CRL.A No. 138 of 2023




    3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD
    NEAR GANESH TEMPLE ATTUR LAYOUT
    YALAHANKA UPANAGAR
    BANGALORE.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI K VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST INC
R.NO.377/2022 U/S.323,341,504,506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860
R/W SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 PENDING
BEFORE THE 71st CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU REGISTERED
BY YALAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE, BENGALURU DISTRICT
AND FOR WHICH ANTICIPATORY BAIL PETITION IN
CRL.MISC.NO.12741/2022 WAS DISMISSED BY THE FIRST
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
ON 12.01.2023.

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

                        JUDGMENT

Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 have filed this

appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 12.01.2023

passed in Crl.Misc. No. 12741/2022 by the LXX Additional

City Civil and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the

anticipatory bail petition filed by the appellants in respect

of crime No. 377/2022 of Yelahanka New Town Police

station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)

and 3(1)(s) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and Sections

341, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC came to

be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants -

accused Nos. 1 to 3, learned counsel for respondent No.2

and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - state.

3. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1

to 3 would contend that there are civil disputes between

one Sri. Ramachandra and the appellants pending in O.S.

No. 290/2007 on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru.

Present complaint came to be filed by respondent No. 2 at

the instigation of Sri. Ramachandrappa, cousin of

appellants. Appellant No. 1 filed W.P. No. 16520/2022 and

this Court had granted stay of further construction of

building by the said Sri. Ramachadrachari who was

arraigned as respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition. He

contends that accused had given representation to the

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP on 28.11.2022 to take

action against Chikkamuniyachari who was respondent No.

4 in the said writ petition as he was proceeding with the

construction. He contends that on the said representation

the BBMP officials visited the spot on 02.12.2022 and a

false complaint came to be filed on 03.12.2022 against the

appellants. He contends that alleged spot is not a place in

public view and it is a remote land and offence under

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are not attracted.

On perusal of the complaint there is no prima facie case

against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence

alleged against them. Without considering all these

aspects learned Special Judge has passed the impugned

order which calls for interference by this Court. With this

he prayed to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1 - State would contend that on perusal of

the averments of the complaint there is a prima facie case

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act

and the Special Court considering the bar under Section

18 of the Act has rightly rejected their anticipatory bail

petition. With this she prayed to dismiss the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

contend that all the appellants abused the complainant by

touching his caste and using filthy words and the spot is

situated near the main road. Complainant is not a party to

any of the civil litigations between the appellants and the

said Sri. Ramachandrappa. There is a prima facie case

against the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the

offence alleged against them. The Special Court invoking

power under Section 18 of the Act has rightly rejected

their anticipatory bail petition. With this he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

this Court has gone through the impugned order, FIR,

complaint and other documents.

7. As per the averments of the complaint,

complainant - respondent No. 2 was constructing a

building as a contractor on behalf of one Sri.

Ramachandrappa in Chitra Layout and he belongs to Bhovi

caste coming under schedule caste category. It is alleged

that these appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 on 27.10.2022

had come from Chikkaballapura to attend the funeral of

father of Sri. Ramachandrapa and they came to the spot of

construction and were taking photographs of the building

and he asked them to stop and enquired why they were

taking photographs and at that time all the three accused

abused him in filthy language by touching his caste and

threatened to take his life and also assaulted him with

hands. The alleged incident occurred on 27.10.2022 and

the complaint came to be filed on 03.12.2022 and there is

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

a delay in filing the complaint. There is a omnibus

allegation against the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 of

abusing the complainant in filthy language, touching his

caste. At this stage it cannot be said that all the appellants

- accused Nos. 1 to 3 abused the complainant with the

same words at the same time. Therefore, at this stage it

cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against

appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. As there is no

prima facie case as per the observation made by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan

Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2020 SC

1036, petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be

entertained as bar under Section 18 of the Act is not

attracted. The other offences under the provisions of IPC

are not punishable either with death or with imprisonment

for life. Without considering all these aspects learned

Special Judge has passed the impugned order which

requires interference by this Court. Appellants - accused

Nos. 1 to 3 have made out grounds for setting aside the

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

impugned order and granting anticipatory bail with terms

and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

12.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 12741/2022 by the

LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, petition filed

by appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is allowed and they are ordered to be released on

bail in the event of their arrest in crime No. 327/2022 of

Yelahanka New Town Police station subject to the following

conditions:

i. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall execute a

personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum

to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall voluntarily

appear before the Investigating Officer within 15

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

days from this day and execute bail bonds and

furnish surety.

iii. The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 shall remain

present before the Police station concerned on every

Sunday between 10.00 am to 02.00 pm and mark

their attendance for a period of two months or till the

filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

iv. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall cooperate

with investigation and make themselves available for

interrogation whenever required.

v. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 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 appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall not

obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 138 of 2023

to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to

be collected by the Police.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS