Karnataka High Court
Sri B M Karunesh vs State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2259 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B M KARUNESH
S/O LATE B M MADAISH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT: VILLA No.46, PHASE-1
ADARSH PALM MEADOWS
VARTHUR ROAD
RAMAGONDANAHALLI
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU - 560 066.
2. SRI RAVI H K
SRI RAVI KUMAR H K
(AS SHOWING IN FIR)
S/O LATE KEMPE GOWDA S
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT: NO.37, HOGEMPU
2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE
VITTALNAGAR, J P NAGAR
Digitally signed by
SANDHYA S BENGALURU - 560 078.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SRI RUDRASWAMY
S/O LATE UCHIRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT. KANCHUGAL BANDE
MATHA, KEMPAPURA
BANAVADI, RAMANAGAR
KARNATAKA - 562 127.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 562 157.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. MANJAMMA
D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT: HUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHIKKAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI
YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU - 562 157.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT WITH A PRAYER TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON
BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.152/2022
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CHIKKAJALA POLICE
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(f) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 seeking
setting aside the order dated 21.12.2002 passed in Crl.Misc.
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
No. 11788/2022 by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder
the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants sought in
respect of crime No. 152/2022 of Chikkajala Police Station
for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(f) of the SC ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to
as `the Act') came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned HCGP for respondent No.1. None appeared for
respondent No. 2.
3. Case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2 had
filed a complaint stating that she belongs to Madiga
community coming under schedule caste and her father Sri.
Krishnappa son of Mallappa was granted 3 acres of land in
survey No. 72/148 in the year 1962-63 and since then he is
doing agriculture in the said land. After his demise, the
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
property was succeeded by respondent No.2 and her sister
jointly in the year 2002. It is further stated that since then
respondent No. 2 and her family members were doing
agriculture in the said land. It is further stated that the
appellants and other accused have conspired together to
acquire the land belonging to respondent No. 2 illegally and
with such intention they have got the phodi changed for
different property without considering the revenue records
possessed by respondent No. 2 in respect of land bearing
survey No. 72/148 measuring 3 acres and have got
converted the land, trespassed into the property and they
have also created fearsome situation in the said land by
bringing bouncers to the said place. They attempted to
forcibly grab the land in survey No. 72/148 to an extent of 3
acres which is belonging to respondent No. 2. It is also
alleged that the appellants and other accused have brought
JCB into the said land on 06.06.2022 and 07.06.2022 and
tried to illegally acquire the land and bring the family of
respondent No. 2 to streets knowing fully well that they
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
belong to schedule caste. The said complaint came to be
registered in Crime No. 152/2022 of Chikkajala Police station
for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(f) of the Act.
The appellants who were arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 3
apprehending their arrest filed Crl.Misc. No. 11788/2022
seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected
by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru, vide order dated 21.12.2022. The
said order is challenged in the instant appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the appellant No. 3/accused No. 3 has purchased the
property bearing survey No. 161 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas
by sale deed dated 17.04.2007 from accused No. 4. It is his
further submission that earlier there was an order dated
25.09.2009 regarding the rectification of title deeds wherein
survey No. 72 was assigned with new survey Nos. 141 to
143, 157, 159 to 162. It is his further submission that the
father of respondent No. 2, namely, Sri. Krishnappa had sold
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
the land granted to him measuring 3 acres by registered sale
deed dated 19.06.1972 and no land is available after the said
sale deed and the respondent No. 2 and other legal
representatives of Sri. Krishnappa are making false claim. It
is his further submission that the Special D.C. has initiated
proceedings against respondent No. 2 and her sister for
creation of illegal rights on survey No. 72 of Uttarahalli
village in RRTCR No. 245/1995-96. It is his further
submission that accused No. 1 has filed two complaints
against the sister of respondent No. 2 and also one complaint
against this respondent No.2 registered in Crime Nos.
54/2022 and 57/2022. It is his further submission that
appellant No. 3 through his GPA holder has filed O.S. No.
259/2022 against nine persons including respondent No. 2
seeking permanent injunction in respect of property
purchased by him wherein after contest temporary injunction
has been granted in favour of accused No. 3 by order dated
15.12.2022. The appellants are the purchasers of the
property after verification of the title deeds of the accused
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
No. 4 who is their vendor. The appellants are making the
claim in the said property by virtue of title held by them and
they are not claiming any illegal occupation of the property.
There might be dispute regarding the identification of the
property. Therefore, under the circumstances, the offence
under Section 3(1)(f) of the Act is not attracted and there is
no prima facie case for the said offence. Hence, bar
contained under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted. He
places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and
others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 wherein it is held
that if there is no prima facie case to attract the offence
under Section 3(1) of the Act, bar under Section 18 is not
attracted. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the
appellants made an attempt to grab the land of respondent
No. 2 who is belongs to schedule caste. The appellants and
other accused manipulated the records by making illegal
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
phodi at the back of respondent No. 2 and the allegations
made in the complaint clearly attract the offence under
Section 3(1)(f) of the Act. There is a bar under Section 18 of
the Act to entertain a petition for anticipatory bail.
Considering all these aspects the learned Special Judge has
passed the impugned order which does not call for any
interference by this Court. With this he prayed to dismiss
the appeal.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court
Government Pleader this Court has gone through the
impugned order, FIR, complaint and other documents.
7. The claim made by the appellants in respect of
property bearing survey No. 161 measuring 2 acres 20
guntas is based on the sale deed dated 17.04.2007 and other
documents. The appellants have also been granted
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 9
(including respondent No. 2 herein who is arraigned as
defendant No. 8) in O.S. No. 359/2022 by order dated
15.12.2022. It is submitted that the father of respondent No.
2 has sold the property granted to him measuring 3 acres by
sale deed dated 19.06.1972 and no property owned by Sri.
Krishnappa is available to inherit by respondent No. 2 and
her sister after his death. Respondent No. 2 and her sister
are making false claim over the property of the appellants
which has been purchased in the year 2007. Considering all
these aspects at this stage it cannot be said that there is a
prima facie case for the offence under Section 3(1)(f) of the
Act. Therefore, bar contained 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.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
submission of the learned counsel for the parties, there are
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and
granting anticipatory bail to the appellants subject to terms
and conditions. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
21.12.2002 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 11788/2022 by the LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by
the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Consequently, the appellants are granted anticipatory bail
and they are ordered to be released on bail in the event of
their arrest in crime No. 152/2022 of Chikkajala 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.
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
ii. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall voluntarily
surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15
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 first and
third Sunday of every month 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
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 2259 of 2022
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 to play
mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be
collected by the Police.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
