Karnataka High Court
Manju vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 4 January, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
CRL.A No. 200335 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200335 OF 2023 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJU
S/O JAGANNATH YADGIR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MALLI, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI- 585225.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. BHIMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADRAMI POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI KALABURAGI- 585102.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI KIRAN
KARNATAKA
S/O JEVANTH BHANDARI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MALLI, TQ. YEDRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI- 585325
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
CRL.A No. 200335 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A OF THE SC/ST (PA)
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1968/2023 DTD.
23.11.2023 BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME. NO.153/2023
REGISTERED BY YEDRAMI POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE P/U/S. 323, 324, 341, 307, 504, 506
R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 R/W
SECTIONS 3(1) (R), 3(1) (S) AND 3(2) (V) OF THE SC AND THE
ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section
14(A) of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1968/2023 dated 23.11.2023,
whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail
petition filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The FIR came to be registered in the instant
case on the basis of the written complaint filed on
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
22.10.2023. It is alleged that on 21.10.2023 at about 09-
00 a.m., the complainant and his wife Bhagyashree were
providing water to the cotton crop standing in their land
through channel. It is further asserted that the land of
accused No.1/appellant was situated adjacent to the land
of the complainant and at about 2-30 p.m., the appellant
and accused No.2 closed the channel through which the
water is being flown to the land of the complainant. When
the complainant enquired with accused No.1 as to why he
closed the channel and preventing the flow of the water,
the appellant abused him in vulgar language as "¤£Àß ºÉÆ®PÉÌ
£ÁªÁåPÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ ©ÃqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ ºÉƯÁå ¸ÀļÉà ªÀÄUÀ£ÃÉ ". When the
complainant objected to the appellant for abusing with
reference to caste, the appellant assaulted on right hand
of the complainant with spade causing injuries to him. It is
also alleged that accused No.2 caught hold the
complainant and the appellant again assaulted with spade
on his left eye and at that time, eyewitnesses rushed to
the spot and pacified the dispute. It is also alleged that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
appellant-accused No.2 tied the complainant to bullock
cart parked by the side of the channel and assaulted on
his legs, head and back with rod causing injuries.
Regarding this incident, a complaint was lodged by the
complainant Kiran and on the basis of his complaint, case
came to be registered in crime No.153/2023 of Yedrami
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 324, 341, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2) (v) of the Schedule
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. The appellant apprehending his arrest, has
approached the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1968/2023 seeking anticipatory
bail and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated
23.11.2023 rejected the bail petition. Against this order,
this appeal is filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1/State.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that there is no evidence to show that the
complainant owns land adjacent to the land of the
accused. He would also assert that there are no
eyewitnesses and the offence was not committed within
the public vicinity and the complaint assertions does not
disclose the intention on the part of the appellant to abuse
the complainant with reference to his caste. He would
contend that no such incident has taken place and with
animosity, this false complaint is being lodged.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1/State would oppose the
anticipatory bail contending that the provisions of
anticipatory bail cannot be made applicable in cases of
offence pertaining to SC/ST (POA) Act. He would also
contend that the allegations do disclose that the
complainant was abused in public vicinity which is visible
to the public at large with reference to his caste and he
was also assaulted. He invited the attention of the Court to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
the injury certificate which discloses that the complainant
has suffered injuries on his body and hence, he would
contend that there is prima facie material evidence as
against the present appellant and under such,
circumstances, there is a bar under Section 18 of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, he
would seek for rejection of the bail.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, the allegations disclose that the dispute between
the parties has taken place in respect of discharge of
water through the channel leading to flow of water to the
land of the complainant. The allegations further would be
that the appellant has blocked the water channel and
when the same was questioned by the complainant, he
was abused with reference to caste by uttering specific
words as "¤£Àß ºÉÆ®PÉÌ £ÁªÁåPÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ ©ÃqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ ºÉƯÁå ¸ÀļÉÃ
ªÀÄUÀ£ÃÉ ". Further, the offence is alleged to have taken place
in the land and it is within the vicinity of public notice.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also
produced the copy of the charge-sheet and on perusal of
the charge-sheet, it is evident that the complainant has
suffered grievous injuries and he was referred to higher
center. This document clearly discloses that the incident
did occur and the complainant was assaulted and he
suffered grievous injuries. Further there are allegations
regarding he being humiliated with reference to the caste.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has
invited the attention of the Court to the decision of this
Court in Writ Petition No.200425/2021 (GM-RES) dated
24.06.2021 (T. Nageshwara Rao and others Vs. State
of Karnataka) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2797/2022 dated
17.01.2023 (Sri Shailesh Kumar V. Vs. State of
Karnataka and another), but both these decisions are
pertaining to petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, wherein
quashing of the proceedings have been sought and
considering the lack of evidence, the provisions of SC/ST
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
have been quashed. But in the instant case, there is prima
facie material not only for causing grievous injuries to the
complainant, but abusing him with reference to the caste.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has
further placed reliance on the decisions of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4306/2018
dated 28.08.2018 (Sri Nagesh @ Nagesh Reddy Vs.
The State of Karnataka) and Criminal Petition
No.100404/2020 dated 27.05.2020 (Agasara Jadiyappa
and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and another),
but on perusal of the said decisions, it is evident that in
both decisions, there were no allegations of abusing with
reference to the caste. In the case of Nagesh, it was only
the allegation regarding the petitioner therein objecting
the complainant for marrying somebody else and dragging
her hands. In other case, the allegations were only
committing the offence of rioting by holding sickle and
clubs and assaulting and throwing the complainant out of
the land. In both these cases, only on the basis of the fact
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
that the victims were belonging to SC/ST, the provisions of
SC/ST were incorporated, but no humiliation was made on
the basis of caste in those decisions, but in the instance
case, there is specific allegation of humiliation with
reference to the caste coupled with causing grievous
injuries. Hence, the principles enunciated in the above
said cited decisions would not come to the aid of the
appellant in any way.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant further
placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and another1, but again the facts and the circumstances
of the said case are entirely different and they were
pertaining to the case and counter case. Further it is not
pertaining to bail, but this again pertaining to quashment
of charge-sheet in part under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but
this case is pertaining to pre-arrest bail and there is prima
facie material regarding the humiliation on the basis of the
(2020) 10 SCC 710
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
caste coupled with assault with weapons causing grievous
injuries to the complainant. Hence, the bar under Section
18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is directly applicable and the
question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise at all.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the investigation is completed and the
charge-sheet is already laid down and the presence of the
appellant is no more required, but it is the fact on record
that he never co-operated during the course of
investigation and all along absconded. After his arrest,
nothing prevented the investigating agency from
submitting supplementary charge-sheet under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C. Hence, mere submission of the charge-
sheet does not give the appellant any right to claim
anticipatory bail as of right. Looking to these facts and
circumstances, the appeal is not at all maintainable and
remedy for the appellant is to surrender before the
jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail. As such, I
proceed to pass the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:149
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
