B M Kumar vs State By
2023 Latest Caselaw 4770 Kant

                            1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

1 . B M KUMAR
    S/O MAYANNA
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
    R/AT NO 34. 2ND MAIN
    1ST CROSS
    MARUTHI NAGAR,
    BAPUJINAGAR,
    BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 026
                                                ... APPELLANT
       (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE BY
    SANJAY NAGAR POLICE
    STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    BENGALURU - 560 001

2 . RAJU NAYAK
    S/O BHIMA NAYAK
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
    ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
    DAIRY SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
    HEBBAL
    BENGALURU - 560 024
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI VISHWA MURTHY, H.C.G.P. FOR R1
        R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
                            2


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.98/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 70TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(CCH-71) AT BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 323, 353, 504 OF IPC 1860 AND SECTIONS
3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 BY SANJAYNAGAR POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU HE MAY BE ENLARGED ON THE BAIL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.MISC.NO.4793/2023.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.7.2023 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


                  JUDGMENT

This appeal filed by the appellant/accused No.1

under Section 14(A)(2) of The Scheduled castes and

the Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred as Special Act) for setting

aside the order of dismissal of bail application filed

under Section 438 of Cr.p.C in Crl.Misc.No.4793/2023

dated 09.06.2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and

Session Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, with

respect to the Crime No.98/2023 registered by the

Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

appellant and learned HCGP for the state. Respondent

No.2 served and unrepresented.

3. The case of the appellant is that the

respondent No.2/Raju Nayak, the Assistant Professor,

for Dairy Science College, Hebbala, Bengaluru, filed a

complaint on 20.05.2023, alleging that he is working

in the said institution. That on 19.05.2023 at 3.00

p.m., with the intention to celebrate World Milk Day

function of the Dairy Science College, while there was

discussion happening about the same at Dean's office,

at that point of time, the appellant who is a senior

Laboratory Assistant in Dairy University of Science,

abruptly entered into the Dean's office and questioned

his transfer and misbehaved with the deans

Dr.Venkatesh.M, Dr.Ramachandra B., and Dr.Praveen

A.r., when the complainant intervened to pacify the

quarrel, at that time, the appellant abused the

complainant in filthy language in loud voice by

insulting the respondent, by taking his caste name as

Lambani and he tried to manhandle the complainant.

The said offence was committed in the presence of

deans, staff members, and other persons. After

registering of the complaint, the police registered the

FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 3

(1)(r)(s) of Special Act and Section 504, 323, 353 of

IPC. The appellant apprehending his arrest in the

hands of the police has approached the trial court for

granting anticipatory bail, which came to be

dismissed, hence he is before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that the appellant is falsely implicated, the

averments, mentioned in the FIR does not attract

Section 3 of the Special Act, there is no specific words

used by the appellant to insult, to the respondent

No.2. Therefore, there is no bar for granting

anticipatory bail to the appellant. He further

contended, this appellant filed a complaint against a

Dean, Renuka Prasad the Ex-Director and others

under the Prevention of Corruption Act, they have

been convicted by the special court. Therefore, in

order to take revenge, this false case has been foisted

by the respondent No.2. Hence prayed for allowing

the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader objected the appeal and contended the

allegation made against appellant is very serious and

he has taken the caste name of the respondent No.2.

Even though the respondent No.2 was a public servant

and assistant professor working in the government

institution. He has scolded the dean and others when

the complainant tried to pacify the quarrel, this

accused appellant abused him in filthy language by

taking his caste name as Lambani and insulted in

presence of the others. Therefore it is a clear case

for attracting the provisions of Sections 18 and 18 A

of the Act and he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Hence prayed for dismissing the appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments and perused the

records, which reveals the appellant is Lab Technician

working in the Dairy Science University, Hebbal where

this respondent No.2 is a Assistant Professor in the

same institute and as per the complaint on

19.05.2023 when a meeting was under progress in

the presence of Dr.Venkatesh M, Dr.Ramachandra B,

Dr. Praveen A.R., and the respondent No.2, this

appellant abruptly came inside the meeting hall and

picked up quarrel by questioning his transfer. When

the complainant tried to stop the quarrel, at that time,

the appellant abused him in filthy language in a loud

voice stating that he is a Lambani person "Who is he

to question", and he pushed him away by stating that

and insulted the complainant who is the member of

SC/ST in presence of officials, doctors and staff

members.

7. On perusal of the complaint, and the

arguments of learned HCGP, it is a clear case where

the appellant insulted the members of the SC/ST by

taking the caste name in the presence of public and

the staff in a public office. Even though, the

respondent No.2 was Assistant Professor in the said

institution, where the appellant is only a Lab

Technician there is a bar under Section 18 and 18A of

the Special Act for granting anticipatory bail.

8. It is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India (2020)

reported in 4 SCC 727, that the bar under Section

18A is valid and if any prima facie case is made out

against the accused, they are not entitled for

anticipatory bail. Therefore, I am of the view, there is

a prima facie case made out against the appellant for

having committed the offence under the Special Act

and also prevented the public servant and made

criminal force on the public servant, while discharging

the official duty. Therefore the appellant is not

entitled for anticipatory bail. The trial court rightly

has rejected the anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is

dismissed.

Appellant is having liberty to surrender and seek

for regular bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV