Kurubara Veereshappa Alias K ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2353 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                         CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

                                              BEFORE

                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100109 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      KURUBARA VEERESHAPPA @ K. VEERESH,
                      S/O KURUBARA HOSAGERAPPA @ K. HOSAPERAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                      R/O. WARD NO.08, BEERAPPA TEMPLE STREET,
                      ANDHRAL, BALLARI-583104


                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. A. VEERANNA,ADV.)

                      AND:

                      1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
         Digitally           THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE APMC YARD PS
         signed by
         BHARATHI            BALLARI
BHARATHI H M
HM       Date:               REPRESENTED BY ITS
         2023.05.04
         16:27:09            STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         +0530
                             HIGH COURT BRANCH,
                             DHARWAD-580011

                      2.     MANMATHUDU S/O KRISHNAIAH
                             AGE. 28 YEARS,
                             R/O. ANDHRAL ROAD,
                             NEAR THUNGABHADRA COTTON MILL, BALLARI, 583104.



                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADV.)
                                 -2-
                                       CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023



                                ***
     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BALLARI IN CRL.MISC P NO. 97/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO. 05/2023 REGISTERED BY APMC YARD PS BALLARI, FOR
THE O/P/U/SEC. 324, 504 AND 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF SCHEDULE CASTES AND
SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST, PENDING INVESTIGATION AND
TRIAL OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND THE SAME
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
12.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                            JUDGMENT

Appellant-accused feeling aggrieved by rejection of

anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on

the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in

Crl.Misc.97/2023, dated 01.03.2023, 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. The factual matrix leading to the case of

prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on

27.1.2023 at about 6.30 p.m. while complainant was returning

after walking near Government School of Andral Village Auto

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

stand there was quarrel between Sri.Y.B.Govind and Kurubar

Beerappa. Complainant spoke to Sri.Y.B.Govind and went to his

house. On 28.1.2023 at 4.30 p.m. while complainant was

returning after walking near Government School of D.C.

Compound, Andral village, accused, who is son-in-law of

Kurubar Beerappa abused the complainant in filthy language by

taking his caste on the pretext that he is supporting

Sri.Y.B.Govind. On complainant questioning as to why he is

abusing by taking caste, accused being enraged of the same,

by means of bear bottle in his hand, assaulted over the head of

complainant, thereby causing bleeding injury. The known

persons of complainant i.e. Premkumar S/o Kollarappa,

Narasimh S/o Parashuram, Suresh S/o Honnaswami @ Isagiri

pacified quarrel and accused went away from the place by

threatening to kill him. On these allegations made in the

complaint case was registered in APMC Yard P.S Crime

No.5/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504,

506 and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

2015 (for short 'the Act').

4. The anticipatory bail application filed by appellant-

accused before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.97/2023 on the

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

file I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari came to be

rejected by order dated 1.3.2023.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appeared

for respondent-State and filed objections contending that there

are sufficient material evidence against accused for the

aforesaid offences alleged against the accused. The offence

under Section 324 of IPC is a schedule offence listed in the

schedule appended to the Act and contemplates a statutory

presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the said Act. There is

legal bar in terms of Section 18 of the Act to maintain

anticipatory bail petition. Looking to the nature of injury

suffered by complainant and circumstances under which offence

has been committed, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting

the anticipatory petition filed by appellant. Therefore, prayed

for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. Learned HCGP along with statement of objections

produced relevant records collected by investigating officer

during the course of investigation. Complaint allegation would

go to show that accused picked up quarrel with complainant on

the pretext that he is supporting Sri.Y.B.Govind in the quarrel

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

that took place between Sri.Y.B.Govind and Kurubar Beerappa

on 27.1.2023. The accused alleged to have abused the

complainant in filthy language by taking his caste with intention

to humiliate, who is member of schedule caste in public view.

8. Learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State contended that anticipatory bail petition

is not maintainable in view of bar contemplated under Section

18 of the Act.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for appellant has

argued that the bar under Section 18 of the Act will not apply,

if complaint does not make out a prima-facie case for

applicability of the provisions of the Act. In support of such

contention he relied on the judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in Shailesh Kumar V/s. State of Karnataka,

reported in 2023 Live Law (Kar) 31, whereby referring the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma

V/s. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710

and judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in Lokanath V/s. State of

Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online Kar 14896, it has

been observed and held that that the offence under the Act is

not established merely on the fact that the informant is a

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

member of Scheduled Caste, unless there is an intention to

humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe for

the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.

10. In the present case, looking to the complaint

allegations, it would go to show that the only allegation is that

accused abused complainant in filthy language by taking his

caste. Other than the allegation in the complaint that accused

has abused complainant by taking his caste with an intention to

insult him in public view, there is no other evidence to draw

any inference of insulting the complainant with an intention to

insult him in public view. Therefore, at this stage, prima facie

no case is made out for the offence punishable under Sections

3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

11. The accused is alleged to have assaulted over the

head of complainant by means of bear bottle on the pretext

that complainant is supporting Sri.Y.B.Govind in the quarrel

that took place between Sri.Y.B.Govind and Kurubar Beerappa

that occurred on 27.1.2023. It is true that offence under

Section 324 of IPC is schedule offence listed in the schedule

appended to the Act and contemplates statutory presumption

of guilt under Section 8 of the Act, which is in the nature of

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

reverse onus, burden vest on the accused, unless effectively

rebutted. The statutory presumption in terms of Section 8 of

the Act arises only when the prosecution proves basic fact

constituting offence under Section 324 of IPC. The question of

placing rebuttal evidence by accused arises only after initial

burden is discharged by prosecution. Therefore, at this stage, it

cannot be held that offence under Section 324 of IPC is proved.

12. On perusal of the wound certificate, it would go to

show that complainant has suffered cut lacerated wound over

right eye, tenderness over right parital area, ringing sensation

in both ears and tenderness over left knee. X-ray finding

recorded in the wound certificate over left knee, pelvic with

both hip found no fracture is seen. City Scan report recorded in

the wound certificate speaks about suggestion of minimal

acute subarachnoid hemorrhage.

13. Indisputedly the injured complainant has seen

discharged from hospital and as such, there is no danger to life.

Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and manner

in which the alleged incident took place, further the fact that

injured has been already been discharged from the hospital and

substantial part of the investigation being completed which is

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

evidenced from the records produced by learned HCGP, in my

opinion, accused is entitled for anticipatory bail. Consequently,

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed.

The order of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari,

in Crl.Misc.97/2023, dated 01.03.2023 is set aside.

Appellant-accused is ordered to be released on bail in the

event of his arrest in connection with APMC Yard police station

Crime No.5/2023, subject to following conditions:

i) Appellant is ordered to be released on bail

on executing personal bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- with one surety for likesum

amount.

ii) The appellant shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when called for

the purpose of investigation.

iii) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction

of trial Court without its prior permission.

CRL.A No. 100109 of 2023

iv) The appellant shall not tamper with the

prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

Vb/-