Karnataka High Court
Sanganagouda S/O Basavantraya ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Rajesh Rai K
-1-
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200127/2023
BETWEEN:
SANGANGOUDA
S/O BASAVANTRAYA GOUDA SUBEDOR
AGE 50 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE AMLIHAL, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST YADGIR 585220
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. SALOMON ALFRED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN R/BY ADDL. SPP
Location:
High Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
of KALABURAGI BENCH
Karnataka THROUGH KEMBHAVI PS
DIST YADGIRI-585 103
2. DEVINDRA @ DEVINDRAPPA
S/O BASANNA TANIKEDAR
AGE 32 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE AMLIHAL,
-2-
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST YADGIR 585220
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14-A OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.04.2023 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
NO.136/2023, PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT
YADGIRI AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CRIME NO.23/2023 OF KEMBHAVI P.S., DIST. YADGIR
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143,
147, 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION \ 149 IPC AND UNDER
SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF LEARNED SESSION JUDGE AT YADGIR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed under Section 14A of the
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 against the order dated 05.04.2023
in Crl.Misc. No.136/2023 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Yadgiri, by rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed
by the appellant under Section 438 of Code of Criminal
Procedure in Crime No.23/2023 registered for the offences
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of
SC and ST (POA) Act and Sections 506, 504, 147, 148,
149 and 323 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that
the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint before
the 1st respondent-police on 02.03.2023 at 10:00 a.m.,
alleging that on 28.02.2023 at about 8.00 p.m., when
himself and his grandfather were sitting in front of
Hanuman Temple at Amlihal Village in Kalaburagi District,
this appellant along with other accused came there and
abused the complainant in filthy language by touching his
caste and when the complainant questioned the same,
accused No.1 by name Channareddy slapped on the cheek
of the complainant/ 2nd respondent and other accused also
assaulted him on his body. On hearing cry of the
complainant his grandfather tried to pacify the quarrel, at
that time some of the accused abused his grand father
also and abused him in filthy language by touching his
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
caste and by giving life threat to them. Hence, the
complaint came to be lodged before the 1st respondent-
police and the same was registered against appellant and
others in Crime No.23/2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST
(POA) Act and Sections 506, 504, 147, 148, 149 and 323
of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, accused
Nos.1 to 4 were arrested and produced before the Special
Judge and subsequently they were enlarged on regular
bail. The appellant being accused No.5 approached the
Sessions Court by filing application under Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in
Crl.Misc. No.136/2023. The said application was rejected
by the Sessions Judge by order dated 05.04.2023.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal
under the provisions of SC/ST(POA) Act for grant of
anticipatory bail.
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that on perusal of the complaint and investigation papers,
absolutely there is no prima facie case made out against
the appellant for the alleged offences under the provisions
of SC/ST (POA) Act. The appellant at no point of time
involved in any incident as alleged in the complaint or
abused the complainant-respondent No.2 by touching his
caste. He further contended that, the similarly placed
accused are already enlarged on regular bail by the
Special Court. Hence, he prays that this appellant may
also be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently
contended that the appeal filed by the appellant is not
maintainable either on fact or under law, since there is
clear bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act for grant of
anticipatory bail. As such, though the other accused were
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
enlarged on regular bail, this appellant approaching this
Court for granting anticipatory bail, the same cannot be
entertained and accordingly he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
7. Having heard both the sides and having
perused the records, it could be seen from the records
that there is no specific allegation against this appellant in
respect of commission of the offence under the provisions
of SC/ST(POA) Act, that he had abused the complainant
by touching his caste Moreover, as per the settled law by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathviraj
Chouhan vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC 159,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the
complaint does not disclose any prima facie case, then bar
under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act will not come in
the way to enlarge the accused on anticipatory bail.
Hence, in that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that, the appellant could be admitted on
CRL.A No. 200127 of 2023
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Appellant-accused No.5 is directed to be enlarged on bail
in the event of his arrest in Crime No.23/2023 by the
respondent police, subject to the following conditions:
i. Appellant shall execute personal bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii. He shall surrender himself before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
iii. He shall appear before the trial Court
and seek for regular bail within a
period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
iv. He shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required.
v. He shall not tamper or hamper the
prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
