Karnataka High Court
Sri Ananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI ANANDA
S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
FOREST GUARD
GUNDRE FOREST RANGE
R/O N.BEGURU VILLAGE AND POST
ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI,
TALUKA H.D. KOTE
DISTRICT MYSORE 571 114
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
SANDHYA S
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI.,ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPBY SUB-INSPECTOR FO POLICE
ANTHARASANTHE POLICE STATION
TALUKA H.D KOTE,
DISTRICT MYSORE
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560 001.
-2-
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
2. SATHISHA
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGE 24 YEARS
HOSHALLIHADI
TALUKA H.D. KOTE
DISTRICT MYSROE 571 114
DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISWAMURTHY., HCGP FOR R-1;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.12.2022 SERVICE OF
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, AND
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.11.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.2196/2022 BY THE LEARNED VI-ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU AND BY GRANTING HIM
ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER
AND OR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 POLICE TO RELEASE HIM ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN ANTHARASANTHE POLICE
STATION CR.NO.69/2022 U/S.448, 504, 506, 341, 342, 302 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(vii) AND OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
VI-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU.
-3-
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Accused No.3 has filed this appeal seeking to set-aside
the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the VI Addl.District
and Special Judge, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.2196/2022 where
under, anticipatory bail petition filed by this appellant /
accused No.3 and others in respect of Crime No.69/2022 of
Antarsante Police Station registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 448, 504, 506, 341, 342, 302 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vii) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be
rejected.
2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant
and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 - State.
Inspite of service of notice, respondent No. 2 remained
absent and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that:
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
One Satisha, s/o Kariyappa has filed complaint stating
that on 10.10.2022 at about 12.30 p.m., the forest officials
of Gundre Zone, RFO-Amritesh, DRFO-Kartik Yadav, the
guards Anand, Bahubali, Ramu, Shekaraiah, Sadashiva,
Manja, Umesh, Sanjay, Rajanayaka, Sushma, Mahadevi,
Ayyappa, Somashekar, Tangamani, Siddiq Pasha trespassed
into his house 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 walk
and therefore, they did not take him and they intimated the
same to the complainant. Thereafter, one Kavitha who is
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
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 inspite 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
Antarsante Police Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 448, 504, 506, 341, 342, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and
under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989. The appellant who is arrayed as accused No.3 in the
FIR, apprehending his arrest filed Crl.Misc.No.2196/2022
along with other accused seeking anticipatory bail and the
same came to be rejected by the VI Addl.District and Special
Judge, Mysuru by order dated 09.11.2022. The
appellant/accused No.3 has challenged the said order in the
present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
the injuries noted in the post mortem report are nine injuries
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
and they are not sufficient to cause the death of a person.
There are no internal injuries. In the post mortem report it is
mentioned that, there is blockage of 80-90% of coronary
artery and therefore the death might be of heart ailment.
The forest officials might have picked this deceased for
making interrogation as he was involved in forest offence.
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) and 3(2)(vii) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and hence, the bar contained in 18
and 18-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not
attracted. He placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of
India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727.
5. It is his further submission that the appellant is ready
to co-operate with the police investigation. The appellant
being the forest guard can be secured easily. Without
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has
passed the impugned order which requires interference by
this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant
anticipatory bail to appellant / accused No.3.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that post
mortem report reveals that the accused has sustained nine
abrasions and they are stated to be anti mortem in nature.
The deceased died in the custody of forest officials. The
deceased belongs to SC/ST, therefore, there is bar to
entertain anticipatory bail petition under Section 18 and 18-A
of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the
trial Court considering the involvement of the appellant, has
rightly rejected his petition seeking anticipatory bail by the
impugned order, which does not call for any interference by
this Court. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP, this Court has
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
gone through the impugned order, FIR, complaint and other
investigation papers in Crime No.69/2022.
8. The deceased - Kariyappa was one of the accused in
FOC No.3/2022-23 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 9, 27, 31, 39, 44, 49(B), 51(1) of Wile Life
(Protection) Act. In the said crime when accused Nos.1 and
2 were arrested, they came to know the name of deceased -
Kariyappa. Therefore, the forest officials brought him for
questioning. It is alleged that the forest officials including
this appellant / accused No.3 have assaulted the deceased
and caused his death. The post mortem report of the
deceased reveals that he had 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 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
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
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.
9. 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 appellant for
the offence under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. More so, it is the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.3 that this
appellant belongs to ST and as such the provisions of the Act
are not applicable to him. Therefore, the bar contained
under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracted. The appellant/accused
No.3 has undertaken to co-operate with the police
investigation and he is working as forest guard and he may
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
be secured for investigation. Without considering all these
aspects, learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned
order which requires interference of this Court.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
submission of the learned counsel for the parties, there are
valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and
granting anticipatory bail to the appellant - accused No.3. In
the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
09.11.2022 passed by the VI Addl.District and Special Judge,
Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.2196/2022 is set aside so far as
appellant/accused No.3 is concerned. Consequently, the
appellant / accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail and he is
ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.69/2022 of Antarsante Police Station subject to the
following conditions:
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
i. The appellant - accused No.3 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 No.3 shall voluntarily surrender
before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from this
day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.
iii. The appellant - accused No.3 shall remain present
before the jurisdictional Police station on every Sunday
between 10.00 am to 02.00 pm and mark his presence
for a period of two months or till filing of the final report
whichever is earlier.
iv. The appellant - accused No.3 shall cooperate with
investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2022
v. The appellant - accused No.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 appellant - accused No.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
DKB
