Karnataka High Court

Sri Girisha B P vs State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                               -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:14039
                                                          CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
                                                      C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2024
                                              C/W
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2024

                      IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.442/2024

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SRI.GIRISHA B.P.
                           S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                           R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
                           MALAVALLI TALUK
                           MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430

                      2.   SRI.B.P.GANGADAHAR
                           S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
                           AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Digitally signed by
RUPA V                     R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
Location: High             MALAVALLI TALUK
Court of                   MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430
Karnataka                                                         ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI.SUNIL RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI.T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           REPRESENTED BY
                           HALAGURU POLICE STATION
                           MALAVALLI TALUK
                           MANDYA DISTRICT 571430
                           REP. BY SPP
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:14039
                                     CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
                                 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024



     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENGALURU

2.   KIRAN.G.
     S/O GANGADHAR
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
     R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI
     MALAVALLI TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT -571 430
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1
    R2- SERVED)

     THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 14(A)(2)OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ONE PASSED BY THE V
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.49/2024 ON 06.02.2024 ON THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL APPLICATION FILED          BY  THE   APPELLANTS   ON
CR.NO.10/2024, ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1/P.S.
(HALAGUR       P.S)      FOR     THE     OFFENCE     P/U/S
506,341,504,355,143,149,323,324,327      OF    IPC    AND
SEC.3(1,r)3(1,d),3(1,e),3(1,s) AND 3(2,va) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT.

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.407/2024

BETWEEN:

     MANJUNATH H.,
     S/O HANUMEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     R/AT HADLI VILALGE
     KASABA HOBLI,
     MALAVALLI TALUK
     PIN -571 430
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA. H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                               -3-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:14039
                                         CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
                                     C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024



     HALAGUR POLICE STATION
     MANDYA
     REP. BY THEIR SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT COMPLEX
     BENGALURU -560 001

2.   KIRAN G.
     S/O GANGADHAR, MAJOR
     R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI,
     MALAVALLI TALUK
     MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT
     R2- SERVED)

       THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015    PRAYING   TO   SET   ASIDE    THE   ORDER   IN   CRIME
NO.10/2024 DATED 12.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA
AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.10/2024
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 506, 341, 504, 355, 143, 149, 323,
324, 327, 307 OF IPC AND SEC., 3(1)(r), 3(1) (d), 3(1)(e),
3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) OF SC/ST (POA) OF THE RESPONDENT
HALAGUR POLICE, BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MANDYA.


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


DATE OF RESERVED THE JUDGMENT         : 18.03.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 05.04.2024
                                 -4-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:14039
                                           CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
                                       C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024




                             JUDGMENT

Crl.A.No.442/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.1 and

2 and Crl.A.No.407/2024 is preferred by accused No.7.

2. A case in Cr.No.10/2024 is 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)

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

and 327 of IPC, on a complaint lodged by one Kiran G S/o

Gangadhar.

3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred a petition under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and accused No.7 under Section

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

Sessions Judge, Mandya.

4. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated

06.02.2024 and 13.02.2024 rejected both the petitions,

which are assailed in these appeals.

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

5. It is alleged in the complaint that on

06.01.2024 at about 7.30 pm, 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

by 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 pocket.

Further, they made him to walk for about a kilometer in

his underwear and insulted him in public view, urinated on

him, slapped him 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 complaint is lodged against them.

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellants in Crl.A.No.442/2024 that the complainant has

lodged a false complaint implicating the appellants after an

inordinate delay. The complaint is politically motivated,

which is filed to wreck vengeance against the appellants.

Omnibus allegations are made, which does not attract the

ingredients of the offences alleged to have been

committed under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Accused No.1 is an

elected representative from Halasahalli Gram Panchayat

and currently serving as a member of the said gram

panchayat. Accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.1,

he is suffering from tuberculosis and currently undergoing

treatment for the past three months. It is contended that

the complainant is a rowdy sheeter having several cases

registered against him.

7. It is further contended that if any such incident

as alleged had taken place, the visuals would have been

captured in the CCTV camera, as the incident is alleged to

have taken place in front of one YCS Bar.

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

8. The learned counsel for the appellant in

Crl.A.No.407/2024 has contended that name of the said

accused is not spelt in the FIR, he is innocent and as an

after thought he has been named as an accused. He

contended that he has been arrested and interrogated and

his further detention is not required.

9. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has opposed the prayer for bail, contending that the

allegations are serious and it is specifically stated that the

accused persons have not only abused and assaulted the

complainant who belong to scheduled caste, but also

paraded him in his underwear in public view, assaulted

him with clubs, chappals, stones etc., and also urinated on

him. He contended that the complainant has taken

treatment for the injuries sustained by him and he has

explained the delay in lodging the complaint. He

contended that in view of a prima facie case against the

appellants for having committed offences under the

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act, accused Nos.1 and 2 are

not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

10. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has further contended that as per the investigation, even

accused No.7 has participated in the commission of the

offence and he is also a member of unlawful assembly,

hence, in view of the serious nature of offence committed,

he is not entitled for the relief he has sought.

11. 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. He was then admitted at Halaguru

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

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

the life threat given to him, 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

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

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.

12. 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

accepted at this stage. The delay in lodging the complaint

has been explained. Merely because there is delay in

lodging the complaint is not a ground to disbelieve the

case of prosecution. The incident has been narrated by

the eye witnesses namely Shivakumar and Ranjitkumar.

There are prima facie materials available on record against

accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the name of accused No.7

is not in the FIR. Further, neither the complainant nor the

witnesses have referred to his name in their statements.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

13. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the

prayer of accused Nos.1 and 2 for anticipatory bail has

observed that the averments in the complaint shows

inhuman attitude on the part of the accused. The names

of some of the witnesses who rescued the complainant

also found in the FIR and regarding the treatment that he

has taken, hospital extract of accident register is filed, the

name of assailants and weapon is also mentioned and

therefore, there is a prima facie case made out by the

prosecution. The complaint averments clearly indicate

that, there is clear caste based attack on the complainant,

hence, bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA)

Act is clearly applicable. Further, observed that prima

facie genuine reason is found for the delay in the

complaint and no suspicion can be raised taking the delay

into consideration. The reasons assigned by the learned

Sessions Judge are based on the material collected by the

prosecution.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

14. Insofar as accused No.7 is concerned, the

learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into

consideration that the name of the said accused is neither

spelt in the FIR nor stated by the witnesses. No valid

reasons are assigned to reject his bail application. The

said accused is already arrested and interrogated. He can

be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions.

Hence, the impugned order insofar as rejecting the

application filed by accused No.7 under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Crl.A.No.442/2024 preferred by accused Nos.1

and 2 is dismissed.

ii. Crl.A.No.407/2024 preferred by accused No.7 is

allowed.

iii. The order dated 13.2.2024 passed by the Court

of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in

Cr.No.10/2024 is set aside.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:14039

iv. Appellant/accused No.7 in Cr.No.10/2024 of

Halagur Police Station, Mandya, is directed to be enlarged

on bail subject to following conditions: