Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2174 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BASAVEGOWDA
S/O LATE MAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. SRI MURAULIDHAR B R
S/O B R RAMESHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
3. SRI PRASANNA
S/O PUTTARAJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. SRI RAVIKUMAR B R
S/O LATE RAMESHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5. SRI CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
Digitally signed by
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SANDHYA S
Location: High 6. SRI BASAVARAJU
Court of Karnataka S/O MAYAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
7. SRI MAHADEVA B S
S/O LATE SOMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
-2-
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
8. SRI NAVEENA
S/O SURESH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BEKKARE VILLAGE,
BETTADAPURA HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY S.H.O. OF BETTADAPURA
POLICE STATION
MYSURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE -560 001.
2. SRI MAHADEVA B S
S/O LATE SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT BEKKARE VILLAGE
BETTADAPURA HOBLI
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESNETNED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO
THEM BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL DIRECTING SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.11.2022 IN CRL.MISC.No.2322/2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, MYSURU DISTRICT AT MYSURU TO
-3-
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.212/2022 OF BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION, MYSURU
DISTRICT U/S. 341, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1)(r)(s),3(2)(va),3(1)(za) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT
ACT 2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 have filed this appeal
seeking setting aside the order dated 15.11.2022 passed
in Crl.Misc.No.2322/2022 where under the appellants have
sought anticipatory bail in respect of crime No. 212/2022
of Bettadapura Police Station registered for the offence
punishable under Sections No.341,504,506,34 of IPC and
Sec.3(1)(r)(s),3(2)(va),3(1)(za) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015, came to be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 and learned HCGP
appearing for the State. Respondent No.2 - inspite of
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
service of notice has not chosen to appear before the Court
either in person or through counsel.
3. Case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2
has filed a complaint on 04.11.2022 stating that on
25.10.2022 on the previous day of Amavasya, Karthika
pooje was kept as tradition in the village, at 7.30 p.m., the
complainant and their people went for pooje. When he
went near the temple, appellant/accused No.1
Basavegowda said, 'do not come inside the temple, stand
there and watch. As he questioned, appellant/accused
Nos.2 to 8, all of a sudden turned around and told that
they belong to Holeya caste and they have no right to ask
questions, their work is to carry the dead body etc. and
they have no right to enter the temple and insulted them
by taking their caste name, dragged them by holding the
neck strap and threatened them. At that time,
appellant/accused No.5 abused them in a filthy language
by taking their caste name and thereafter he returned
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
home. As the matter was not settled in the panchayat, he
filed the complaint on 04.11.2022. The said complaint
came to be registered in Crime No.212/2022 of
Bettadapura Police Station for the aforesaid offence.
4. The Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 who are
arrayed as accused apprehending their arrest filed
Crl.Misc.No.2322/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and same
came to be rejected by the VI Addl. District & Special
Judge, Mysuru vide order dated 15.11.2022. The
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 have challenged the said
order in the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the alleged incident occurred on 25.10.2022
and the complaint came to be filed on 04.11.2022. There
is a delay of ten days in filing the complaint and this itself
shows that it is a false complaint. It is his further
submission that the villagers have filed the complaint on
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
20.10.2022 to the Tahasildar, Periyapatna Taluk regarding
misappropriation of temple funds by this
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 and taking action against
them. As such, a false complaint came to be filed.
6. It is his further submission that the evidence
produced in this appeal would reveals that no such
incident had occurred as on the date and time mentioned
in the complaint. Even the press persons have taken the
photographs and reported the news regarding performing
karthika pooje on the previous day of Amavasya and there
is no report regarding the alleged incident. It is his further
submission that the abuse touching caste is omnibus
allegation and there is no prima-facie case against the
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offence under
Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(za) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 and
therefore, bar contained under Section 18 and 18-A is not
attracted. The Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 are
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
respectable persons and they are ready to co-operate with
the investigating officer during investigation. Without
considering all these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has
passed the impugned order which requires interference by
this Court. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal and
grant anticipatory bail to the Appellants/accused Nos.1 to
8.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent would
contend that photos taken out of CCTV footages produced
by the Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 has covered one
particular portion of the temple and it did not cover the
entrance side of the temple. It is his further submission
that the delay in filing the complaint is not properly
explained by the Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8. On
perusal of the same, there is prima-facie casefor the
offences alleged and the bar contained under Section 18
and 18-A of the aforesaid Act is attracted. The Sessions
Court considering the said aspect has rightly rejected the
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
bail petition of the Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 which
does not call for interference by this Court. With these, he
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 and learned HCGP, this
Court has gone through the averments of the complaint,
other documents and the impugned order. The accusation
leveled against the Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 that on
25.10.2022 at about 7.30 p.m., the Appellants/accused
Nos.1 to 8 had restrained the complainant and other
persons who accompanied him from entering the temple
and abused them in filthy language touching their caste.
The said averments made in the complaint are an omnibus
allegation with regard to taking the name of the caste of
the complainant and other persons. Apart from that, the
villagers have filed complaint and there are chances of
respondent No.2 filing the false complaint against these
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 to take revenge against
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
them. The photographs recorded in the CCTV footages
produced in this case at relevant point of time and date
mentioned in the complaint does not reveal any alleged
incident took place in front of the temple. At this stage, it
cannot be said that there is prima-facie case against
these Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offence under
Section 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(za) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989.
Therefore, bar under Section 18 and 18-A is not attracted.
The other offence alleged against these
Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 is not punishable with death
or imprisonment for life.
9. Without considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order
which requires interference by this Court and there are
valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and
grant anticipatory bail to the Appellants/accused Nos.1 to
8.
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 15.11.2022 passed in
Crl.Misc.2322/2022 by the VI Addl. District and Special
Judge, Mysuru is set aside. Consequently, the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 8 are granted anticipatory
bail and they are ordered to be released on bail in the
event of his arrest in crime No. 212/2022 of
Bettadapura Police Station subject to the following
conditions:
i. The appellant/accused Nos.1 to
8 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 appellant/accused Nos.1 to
8 shall voluntarily surrender before
the Investigating Officer within 15
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
days from this day and execute bail
bond and furnish surety.
iii. The appellant/accused Nos.1 to
8 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 appellant/accused Nos.1 to
8 shall cooperate with investigation
and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever required.
v. The appellant/accused Nos.1 to
8 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 them
from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the Police Officer.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 2174 of 2022
vi. The appellant/accused Nos.1 to
8 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, SSD
