Girish Poonacha vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 3885 Kant

                               1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1 . GIRISH POONACHA
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
    S/O LATE C.P. ERAPPA,

   KOKERY VILLAGE
   CHEYYANDANE POST,
   MADIKERI TALUK,
   KODAGU - 571 212.

2 . PEMMAIAH.C.C.
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
    S/O LATE KARIAPPA,

3 . ACHAIAH B.M
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    S/OMUTHAPPA B.A,

4 . B.C. ACHAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
    S/O LATE B.A CARIAPPA,

   PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
   R/O NARIYANDADA VILLAGE,
   CHEYANDANE POST,
   MADIKERI TAULK,
   KODAGU DISTRICT-571212

5 . I.K.KARYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                                 2


   S/O LATE KARUMBAIAH,
   R/O KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
   VIRAJPET TALUK,
   KODAGU DISTRICT-571212

6 . B.T. SHARANU SUBRAMANI
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
    S/O B.M.THAMMAIAH,

   R/O NARIYANDADA VILLAGE,
   CHEYANDANE POST,
   MADIKERI TAULK,
   KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 212

7 . P.P. PRATAHP
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
    S/O P.B. POOVAIAH,
    R/O CHELAVARA VILLAGE,
    CHEYANDANE POST,
    MADIKERI TAULK,
    KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 212

8 . P.U. SOMANNA
    AGED ABOUT 45 YARS,
    S/O P.M.UTHAPPA,

   R/O KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
   VIRAJPET TALUK,
   KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 212.

9 . P.B. PONNAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
    S/O LATE BHEMMAIAH,
    R/O CHURCH STREET,
    VIRAJPET TALUK,
    KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.

10 . B.P.SUNITHA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     D/O B.M. PONNAPPA,
                                3


     R/O KUNJILAGERI VILLAGE
     BELLUMADU POST,
     VIRAJPET TALUK,
     KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.
                                               ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     NAPOKLU POLICE STATION,
     MADIKERI,
     REP BY ITS STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     BENGALURU-560011.

2.   MANOHAR NAYAK R.
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     S/O LATE REKYA NAIK,
     HEAD MASTER,
     NARIYANDA HIGH SCHOOL,
     NARIYANDA VILLAGE,
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571212.

     ALSO AT
     MANOHAR NAYAK.R
     C/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU NAIDU,
     NEW EXTENSION, APPAIAH SWAMY ROAD
     VIRAJPET, KODAGU-571218.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, H.C.G.P. FOR R1
 SRI. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE
 FOR SRI. VANAJAKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 28-04-2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.124/2023 BY THE
HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU,
MADIKERI AND PASS AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT
1ST RESPONDENT NAPOKLU POLICE, MADIKERI TO RELEASE THE
                                 4


APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST REGISTERED
BY NAPOKLU POLICE STATION, MADIKERI, IN CR.NO.24/2023 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353, 504, 341, 342,
323, 324, 506 OF IPC 1860 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a) OF
SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.6.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 10

under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short

'SC/ST(POA) Act') for setting aside the order in

Crl.Misc.No.124/2023 passed by the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri for having dismissing the bail

petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. arising out of Crime

No.24/2023 registered by Napoklu Police Station, Kodagu for

the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 341, 342,

324, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST

(POA) Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent

No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2

filed a complaint on 16.04.2023 alleging that he is working as a

Teacher in private aided Institute and he was promoted as Head

Master, but the accused persons who are the President,

Secretary and members of the Institution which run by the

Trust and Management obstructed respondent No.2 from taking

charge as Head Master. That on 07.01.2023, the complainant

handed over the charge to accused No.10-Sunitha and came to

Madikeri. One Jeethukumar who is the clerk of the said

Institution instructed the complainant through Whatsapp to

come to the meeting on 09.01.2023. Prior to that, he was also

called on 08.01.2023 for pre-meeting discussion and when he

reached there, these accused persons especially accused No.1

abused him in the filthy language taking the name of the caste

and he said to be dragged the complainant to the room, locked

the room, kicked and assaulted him. Once again, the accused

No.10 also abused him stating that he is a low caste man and

not eligible to sit as a Head Master and also threatened that

they will file a POCSO case against him by obtaining complaint

from any of the parents of the student. Then on 09.01.2023,

they compelled him to accept that he has sexually assaulted a

child and accused No.10 once again abused him by taking the

caste name and others also joined and thrown him out.

Thereafter, he came to know that a false case has been

registered against him under POCSO act and after obtaining the

anticipatory bail, he lodged the complaint. The Police after

registering the case, trying to arrest the appellants, hence, they

approached the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail which came

to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended

that the complainant involved in a POCSO case, therefore, they

told the respondent to avoid taking of charge as Head Master

and they have been falsely implicated in order to overcome the

POCSO case. There is a delay of four months in filing the

complaint. Even otherwise, the incident took place inside the

room, therefore, Section 3(1) of the SC/ST(POA) Act does not

attract. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

objected the appeal and the learned counsel for respondent

No.2 has contended that accused No.1 has involved in

misappropriation of fund and also irregularity committed by

him. The complainant himself has filed a complaint, where

accused No.1 was acquitted in Spl.C.No.172/2018.

Subsequently, under the grudge and vengeance, he harassed

the complainant when the complainant came to the meeting in

the presence of the staff, he has been dragged to the room,

kicked, assaulted and abused him in filthy language. Therefore,

the alleged offence attract against accused Nos.1 and 10. They

are required for custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed for

dismissing the appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

record, the point that arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellants made out the ground for

granting anticipatory bail ?"

7. On perusal of the record, which reveals, the

appellants- accused persons are the members of the

Management Committee. Accused No.1 is the President and

others are Executive Members. Accused No.10 was Head

Mistress. The entire allegation says that the accused persons

called for the meeting on 09.01.2023 and again on 08.01.2023,

they asked the complainant to come to the Institution for pre-

meeting discussion and in the office, accused Nos.1 and 10

abused the complainant in the filthy language by taking the

name of the caste and insulted him in the presence of the other

accused and staff of the Educational Institution. Accused No.1

as well as accused No.10 abused him by taking the caste name

and they dragged him to the room, there they kicked, assaulted

the complainant and they threatened that they will file a

complaint against him under the POCSO Act. It is also revealed

from the records that subsequently on 10.01.2023, they

obtained the complaint from one Latha, referred the same to

the Police and got registered a criminal case against respondent

No.2 under the POCSO Act. They also prepared a resolution

against the respondent and issued notice to him. The

management headed by accused No.1 who is having personal

vengeance against respondent No.2, after the acquittal, he has

managed to file a complaint against respondent No.2 through

others by throwing him out of the post and was avoiding to take

the charge as a Head Master mainly on the ground that he

belong to Lambani caste, even though he was identified as a

good teacher and also improved Hindi in the said Institution.

Considering all these facts and though there is a delay, but

accused Nos.1 and 10 were abused the complainant in filthy

language taking the caste name in the presence of the staff,

other teachers, Executive members and dragged him to the

room, assaulted him physically and blackmailed him to accept

the guilt for sexual assaulting the children. Therefore, it cannot

be taken as a lighter way that they have not insulted the

members of the SC/ST people and they have not insulted him

by taking the caste name and lowering the prestige in presence

of others. therefore, I am of the view, the accused Nos.1 and 10

are not entitled for bail, whereas, others i.e., appellants-

accused Nos.2 to 9 are entitled for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part.

The appeal filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 10 are hereby

dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant Nos.2 to 9 are

hereby allowed.

The order of the trial Court rejecting the application is set

aside and they are granted anticipatory bail.

The respondent - Police are directed to release the

appellants/accused Nos.2 to 9 on bail in the event of their arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 341, 342,

324, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST

(POA) Act, registered by the respondent - Police in Crime

No.24/2023, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Appellant Nos.2 to 9 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each with two sureties for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) They shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

(iii) They shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iv) They shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

(v) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on every 2nd and 16th of the Calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., for a period of three months till filing of the charge-sheet whichever is earlier.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the

respondent No.2 or State is at liberty to seek cancellation of this

bail order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB