Karnataka High Court
Babu @ Gyadigunte Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2023
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. BABU @ GYADIGUNTE BABU
S/O IMAM SAB
AGED ABOUT 35 YARS,
R.O GYADIGUNTE VILLAGE,
NAGALMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TLAUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572136
PERMANENTRLY R/AT
PEDDAKONDAPURAM VILLAGE,
RAMAGIRI MANDALA
ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
PIN 515 621
Digitally signed
by V KRISHNA
Location: HIGH 2. RAHEEM
COURT OF S/O IMAM SAB
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O GYADIGUNTE VILLAGE
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 136
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NARASI REDDY G.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THIRUMANI P S, PIN 561 202
2. SRI. MUTYALAPPA
S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT PENDLIJEEVI VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 136
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 AND SRI
B.CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)
***
CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU,
IN CRL.MISC.NO.498/2023, DATED 03.05.2023 VIDE ANN.-C
AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 TIRUMANI POLICE TO RELEASE THE
APPELLANTS IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.22/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 34 AND
302 OF IPC R/W 3(2)(va) OF SC AND ST (POA AMENDMENT)
ACT 2015, ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for appellant submits that he is not
pressing the case of the appellant No.1 - Babu @ Gyadigunte
Babu, as he was arrested and released on bail.
2. This appeal is filed under the provisions of Section
14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, praying to set aside the
impugned Order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the III Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Crl. Misc.
No.498/2023 and to grant anticipatory bail directing the
respondent No.1 - Tirumani Police to release the appellant No.2
- Raheem in the event of his arrest in Crl. No.22/2023
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34 & 302
of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA Amendment)
Act, 2015.
3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. Learned counsel Sri B.
Chandramouli, for respondent No.2 remained absent.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint
filed by one Mutyalappa a case came to be registered against
the appellant No.2 - Raheem and his brother accused No.1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
Babu @ Gyadigunte Babu for the offences punishable under
Sections 34 & 302 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST
(POA Amendment) Act, 2015, since there was a quarrel
between them with regard to money transaction.
5. The appellant / accused have approached the
learned Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail under the
provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Cr. No.22/2023 for the
aforesaid offences, which came to be rejected by an order
dated 03.05.2023.
6. The learned counsel for appellant contends that
though the Police have registered FIR for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and after investigation they
filed charge sheet only for the offence punishable under Section
306 IPC and also deleted some of the provisions of Special Act.
7. Appellant - Accused No.1 was arrested during the
pendency of this appeal and he has been granted bail by the
learned Sessions Judge. This appellant - accused No.2 is also
falls under the same footing. Hence, he prays to set aside the
case registered against him and grant him bail.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of
respondent - State contends that accused No.1 was arrested
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
and he was remanded to Judicial Custody and thereafter he
was granted bail by the learned Session Judge. But, in the
case of appellant - accused No.2 the ground of parity is not
applicable as this appeal is filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence, there is a bar under Section 18 & 18A of the Act and in
the event if he is granted bail, he may not available for
investigation and he may abscond. Hence, he prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for appellant - accused No.2 and the learned HCGP for
respondent - State and also on perusal of the order passed by
the learned Session Judge in dismissing the bail application of
the accused, it is seen that the Police have registered a case
against the appellant No.2 - Raheem and his brother accused
No.1 - Babu @ Gyadigunte Babu for the offences punishable
under Sections 34 & 302 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of
SC & ST (POA Amendment) Act, 2015.
10. It is seen that the accused are absconding and
during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, appellant -
accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
and it is contended that the learned Session Judge has granted
him bail.
11. Now, the appellant, who is accused No.2, is before
us in this appeal. It is contended by the learned counsel for
accused that there is no offences committed either under the
provisions of IPC or under the Special Act and there is no
allegations in the charge sheet against him. Hence, he prays to
grant anticipatory bail.
12. Copy of the charge sheet, Order passed in Crl. Mis.
No.867/2023 and other documents produced by the learned
counsel for appellant, reveals bail was granted to accused No.1.
Trial Court while granting the bail to appellant - accused No.1
has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of JEET RAM AND OTHERS vs STATE OF HP reported in 2003
Crl. L.J. 736, but the present appeal filed by the appellants is
for grant of anticipatory bail.
13. In another case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of PRITHVI RAJ CHAUHAN vs UNION OF INDIA reported in
(2020) 4 SCC 727, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'if the
complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
of the provisions of the Act, the bar created by Section 18 and
18A shall not apply.
14. Admittedly, the Police have registered a case under
the provisions of Section 302 IPC and other offences under
Speial Act, but while filing the charge sheet they mentioned the
offence under Section 306 IPC and left out other offences.
Column No.17 of the charge sheet clearly reveals that deceased
approached the both the accused and demanded for return of
hand loan taken from her, they refused and quarrel started
between them. At that time, both the accused abused and
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Upset by this
quarrel the deceased committed suicide on 04.04.2023.
15. It is clear from the above, that there is a categorical
mention by the Police in the FIR as well as charge sheet filed by
them with regard to involvement of both he accused persons in
the crime and also accused No.1 instigating the deceased to
commit suicide. There is prima facie material for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC for abetting the deceased
to commit the suicide. Therefore, there is a bar under Section
18 & 18A of the Act, for grant of anticipatory bail and also in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid
NC: 2023:KHC:23911
CRL.A No. 1061 of 2023
cases. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to
the accused.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal with respect to
appellant - accused No.2 is dismissed. The appeal filed by
appellant - accused No.1 is dismissed as not pressed.
SD/-
JUDGE
VK
