Sri Shyamidsab S/O Mahammedsab ... vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 3922 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632
                                                            CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                           DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100269 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. SHYAMIDSAB S/O MAHAMMEDSAB DANAKAYAR,
                      AGE. 35 YRS, OCC. COOLIE,
                      R/O. HULIHYDER VILLAGE,
                      TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL-583283
                                                                        ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION,
                           REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
                           PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                           HIGH COURT BUILDING,
        Digitally
        signed by J
                           DHARWAD-580001.
        MAMATHA
J
MAMATHA Date:         2.   SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O YANKAPPA TALWAR,
        2023.07.06
        11:05:28 -         AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRI,
        0700
                           R/O. HULIHYDER VILLAGE,
                           TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL-583283

                                                                     ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
                          R2 SERVED)

                           THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF CR.P.C.
                      SEEKING TO GRANT HIM ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT
                      RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
                      THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT KANAKAGIRI POLICE IN THE IN
                      CRIME NO. 85/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143,
                                      -2-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632
                                                CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023




147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506, 109
R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)(v) AND
3(2)-(v-a) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT-2015 AND GRANT BAIL.

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

                              JUDGMENT

Appellant/accused No.54 feeling aggrieved by rejection of

Anticipatory Bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on the file

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in

Crl.Misc.No.414/2023, dated 29.5.2023, preferred this appeal.

2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as

assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. On the strength of complaint filed by

Smt. Hampamma w/o Yankappa Talawar, criminal law was set

into motion by registering a case in Cr.No.85/2022 of

Kanakagiri police station for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 302, 427, 448, 504,

506, 109 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(2)(va) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for

short the 'Act').

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632 CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023

4. The factual matrix leading to the case of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on

11.08.2022 at about 9 to 9.30 a.m., in Hulihyder,

taluk Kanakagiri of Koppal district, the complainant was in the

house along with her husband, Yankappa Talawar and relatives

Hanumamma Talawar, Eramma Talavar and Parashuram

Talawar. At that time, all the accused persons formed

themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly

weapons trespassed into the house of complainant and abused

complainant in filthy language referring to her caste. It is

further alleged by the prosecution that they dragged the

complainant, Hanumamma and Eramma and assaulted

Hanumamma and Parashuram with clubs, further dragged the

husband of complainant out of the house and took him to

Valmiki circle, where he was further assaulted by stone, club,

rod and stabbed with knife, due to which Yenkappa Talawar

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. On these

allegations, the investigating officer having completed

investigation, filed the charge-sheet.

5. The learned HCGP filed objections contending that

there are sufficient material evidence against the appellant for

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632 CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023

having involved in the commission of offence. The Anticipatory

bail petition is not maintainable in terms of bar under Section

318 of the Act. The statement of witnesses C.Ws.13 to 77

would prima facie go to show the involvement of this appellant

in commission of offence. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. On careful perusal of the material evidence on

record, it would go to show that charge of committing murder

of Yenkappa is against accused Nos.1, 3 and 27 and it is on

account of their overt act by means of stone Yenkappa suffered

injuries and died on the spot. The specific allegation against the

appellant/accused No.54 is that he was holding stone along

with other accused named in the charge sheet, at the place

where Yenkappa was said to have assaulted by group of

persons assembled at Valmiki circle. The charge sheet material

would also go to show that accused No.55 Hussainsab

Kashimsab Yaligar, accused No.49 Salim Husainsab Bilijola,

present appellant/accused No.54, accused No.10 Bari Imamsab

Bashasab Kanakagiri were holding stone and committed

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632 CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023

criminal trespass into the house of complainant with an

intention to commit physical assault, if anybody is found in the

house. Since, there was none in the house of complainant, they

came out of the house.

8. Indisputably, FIR was registered against 30 accused

in the initial stage. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against

accused Nos.1 to 59. The identification of assailants involved in

commission of offence alleged by the prosecution is based on

the CCTV footage, wherein it was copied in a pen drive and

given by CW.94 to the Investigating Officer. The involvement of

the remaining accused is based on the alleged voluntary

statement said to have been given by some of the accused

which was recorded on different times.

9. The allegation against the present appellant insofar

as penal action under I.P.C. are concerned, they are bailable.

The appellant/accused No.54 is also charged for the offences

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and

3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. In order to

attract penal action in terms of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, there

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632 CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023

must be intentional insult or intimidates with intent to humiliate

a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any

place within public view. Looking to the complaint allegations

and the charge sheet materials, it would go to show that

incident in question took place between two groups with regard

to installation of Valmiki idol, which was alleged to have been

destroyed two years prior to the incident. The alleged

involvement of appellant/accused No.54 in commission of

offence alleged against him is a matter of trial. It is not in

dispute that similarly placed accused have been already

released on bail by the order of this Court. Therefore, on the

ground of parity, appellant/accused No.54 is also entitled for

Anticipatory bail. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal filed by appellant/accused No.54 is hereby

allowed.

The impugned order passed by the trial Court on the file

of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in

Crl.Misc.No.414/2023, dated 29.5.2023, is hereby set aside.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6632 CRL.A No. 100269 of 2023

The appellant/accused No.54 is ordered to be released on

bail in the event of his arrest in crime No.85/2022 of Kanakagiri

Police Station on executing personal bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for like-sum, subject to following

conditions:

i) Appellant/accused No.54 shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

ii) Appellant/accused No.54 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

iii) Appellant/accused No.54 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission of trial Court.

iv) Appellant/accused No.54 shall attend jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing, unless otherwise he is exempted by valid reasons.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

VB