Karnataka High Court

Suresha @ Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka By on 10 April, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                        -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:14570
                                                  CRL.A No. 358 of 2024
                                              C/W CRL.A No. 476 of 2024



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                      BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2024
                                       C/W
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2024


             IN CRL.A.NO.358/2024
             BETWEEN:

             1.    SURESHA @ SURESH
                   AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                   S/O MADE GOWDA @ CHIKKAMARIGOWDA,
                   RESIDING AT CHANNIPURA, KASABA HOBLI,
                   NAGEGOWDANADODDI,
                   MALAVALLI TALUK,
                   MANDYA DISTRICT-571430

             2.    APPAIAH @ BASAVARAJU
Digitally          AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
signed by          S/O KARI GOWDA
LAKSHMI T          RESIDING AT AGASANAPURA VILLAGE,
Location:          KASABA HOBLI,
High Court         MALAVALLI TALUK,
of                 MANDYA DISTRICT-571430
Karnataka
             3.    H PRASANNA KUMAR @ PRASANNA
                   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                   S/O B C HONNE GOWDA,
                   RESIDING AT BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE,
                   MALAVALLI TALUK,
                   NANJEGOWDANADODDI POST,
                   MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
                                                           ...APPELLANTS
             (BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:14570
                                      CRL.A No. 358 of 2024
                                  C/W CRL.A No. 476 of 2024



AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
     HALAGURU POLICE STATION,
     MANDYA DIST
     REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     BANGALORE-560001.
2.   KIRAN G
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     S/O GANGADHAR,
     RESIDING AT GOWDA GERE VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     MALAVALLI TALUK,
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024
IN CRL.MISC.NO.49/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND C/C V
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA ON THE
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT U/S.438 OF CPRC AND TO
GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT HALAGUR P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT TO
RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVNET OF THEIR
ARREST IN CR.NO.10/2024 REGISTERED FOR AN OFFENCE
P/U/S/143,323,324,327,341,355,504,506 R/W 149 OF IPC A/W
SEC.3(1)(r),3(1)(d),3(1)(e),3(1)(s),3(2)(VA) OF (POA) SC/ST
ACT, ON THE COMPLIANT OF KRIAN G NOW PENDING BEFORE
THE HONBLE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA.


IN CRL.A. NO.476/2024
BETWEEN:

1.   PRAKASH
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
     RESIDING AT NO 107,
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:14570
                                       CRL.A No. 358 of 2024
                                   C/W CRL.A No. 476 of 2024



     BEHIND GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL,
     BASAVANPURA VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     MALAVALLI TALUK,
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571430
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY HALAGURU POLICE STATION,
     MANDYA 571430
     REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     BENGALURU-560001.

2.   KIRAN G
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
     S/O GANGADHAR,
     RESIDING AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     MALAVALLI TALUK,
     MANDYA DISTRICT-571430
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI., HCGP)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2)OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2024 IN
CR.NO.10/2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND C/c V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA ON THE PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. AND TO GRANT AN ORDER OF
BAIL AND TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.10/2024
REGISTERED BY HALAGURU P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE
P/U/S 143, 323, 324, 327, 341, 355, 504 AND 506 R/W 149 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(E), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(va) OF
SC/ST (POA) NOW PENDING BEFORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS, C/c V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MANDYA.
                                   -4-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:14570
                                             CRL.A No. 358 of 2024
                                         C/W CRL.A No. 476 of 2024



     THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

DATE OF RESERVED THE JUDGMENT         : 02.04.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 10.04.2024

                            JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants in both the appeals and the learned HCGP for

the State and perused the material on record.

2. Crl.A.No.358/2024 is preferred by accused

Nos.3 to 5 and Crl.A.No.476/2024 is preferred by accused

No.6.

3. On a complaint lodged by one Kiran G S/o

Gangadhar, a case in Cr.No.10/2024 was registered at

Halagur Police Station, Mandya, against accused Nos.1 to

5 and others for the offences punishable under Section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST (PoA)

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

Act') and Section 341, 323, 504, 506, 355, 143, 149, 324

and 327 of IPC.

4. Accused Nos.3 to 5 preferred a petition under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and accused No.6 under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of V Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Mandya. Dismissal of their respective

petitions has resulted in filing of these appeals.

5. It is alleged in the complaint that on

06.01.2024 at about 7.30 p.m., when the

complainant/victim was proceeding on a motorcycle along

with his friend Shivakumar, accused Nos.1 to 5 named in

the FIR and others came in a Santro Car in a high speed

and waylaid their motorcycle and dragged the complainant

holding his neck, abused him in filthy language using

vulgar words referring to his caste and tried to assault him

with club and rods. When the complainant started

running, they chased him, tore his cloths and assaulted

with clubs, rod and stones, kicked him and also snatched

his gold chain weighing 20 gms. and Rs.50,000/- from his

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

pocket. Further, they made him to walk for about a

kilometer in his underwear and insulted him in public view,

urinated on him, slapped etc. One Ranjith of Hadly

village, Chikkaswamy of Huskuru village and Shivakumar

rescued him. Thereafter, the accused persons went away

threatening him with dire consequences saying that he will

be slaughtered if he lodged any complaint against them.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants that, there is an inordinate

delay in lodging the complaint and the appellants are

falsely implicated in the case. Complaint is politically

motivated and the entire allegations are false. The

ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. The

provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act are invoked as an after

thought, to deny the relief of bail to the appellants.

Omnibus allegations are made and therefore, the learned

Sessions Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion

that the appellants are involved in the alleged incident.

They contend that even though the complainant has taken

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

treatment in different hospitals, no MLC has taken place,

hence the entire allegations are false.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has opposed the prayer for bail contending that the

allegations are serious in nature and specific overt acts are

attributed against the accused persons. The complainant

has taken treatment for the injuries sustained by him and

explained the delay in lodging the complaint. He

contended that in view of a prima facie case against the

appellants for having committed a heinous offence against

the complainant, a member of Scheduled caste, the

learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for

bail.

8. The incident is alleged to have taken place on

6.1.2024 at about 7.30 pm. In the complaint, it is stated

that one Ranjit S/o Krishnappa, Chikkaswamy S/o

Hombalaiah and Shivakumar S/o Doddasiddaiah rescued

the complainant. Victim was admitted at Halaguru

Hospital, wherein he was given first aid treatment. It is

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

stated that as he was ashamed of the incident and due to

the life threat given by the accused persons, he went to

Kanakapura, to the house of his wife and took treatment

in the Government Hospital. Thereafter, he took treatment

in a private Hospital for about 4 days as an in-patient. He

was told by the panchayatdars not to lodge any complaint,

but the accused persons continued to abuse him stating

that he belong to Scheduled caste and he cannot do

anything and started threatening him with dire

consequences.

9. In Crl.A.No.358/2024, the appellants/accused

Nos.3 to 5 are seeking anticipatory bail and in

Crl.A.No.476/2024, appellant/accused No.6 is seeking

regular bail. Serious allegations are made in the

complaint, not only that the complainant was abused in

filthy language with reference to his caste, assaulted with

club, rod, stones and kicked etc., but also that the accused

urinated on him and paraded him in his underwear. The

contention that the allegations are false etc., cannot be

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

accepted at this stage. The delay in lodging the complaint

has been explained. Merely because there is delay in

lodging the complaint itself is not a ground to disbelieve

the complaint averments. The incident has been narrated

by the eye witnesses namely Shivakumar and

Ranjitkumar. There are prima facie materials available on

record against accused Nos.3 to 5. However, the name of

accused No.6 is not in the FIR. Further, neither the

complainant nor the witnesses have referred to his name

in their statements.

10. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the

prayer for bail has observed that there are sufficient

materials available on record at this stage to believe the

involvement of the accused in the commission of offence.

Further, since prima facie ingredients of Section of 3 of

SC/ST (PoA) Act is attracted, there is specific bar

contained under Section 18(A) of the said Act. The said

observations hold good for accused Nos.3 to 5 in view of

prima facie materials against them. They are not only

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

named in the FIR, but the complainant/victim has stated

about their overt acts in the complaint. However, the

same observations made while rejecting the prayer for

regular bail preferred by accused No.6 is not only

erroneous but without application of mind. There is no bar

under Section 18(A) of the SC/ST Act to grant regular bail.

Furthermore, the name of accused No.6 is not in the FIR

and neither the complainant nor the witnesses in their

statements have specifically mentioned about his presence

and overt acts. Hence, the rejection of the petition filed

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.6 is liable to

be set aside. The said accused has been interrogated. His

further detention in custody is not required. Accordingly,

the following:

ORDER

i. Crl.A.No.358/2024 preferred by appellants /

accused Nos.3 to 5 is dismissed.

ii. Crl.A.No.476/2024 preferred by accused No.6 is

allowed.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14570

iii. The Order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the

Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya,

in Cr.No.10/2024, is set aside.