Karnataka High Court
Srikanth N.S vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2097 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRIKANTH N.S.
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT No.11, ATTUR MAIN ROAD
NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE
ATTUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
PIN - 560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K LAKSHMIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI HIGH COURT BUILDING
Location: HIGH AT BENGALURU - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI LOKESH
S/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS
OPP. VEERABHADRA TEMPLE
ATTUR POST
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
PIN - 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1
SMT. SUJAYA K R, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
CRL.A No. 2097 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGED THE APPELLANT ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL BY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS/YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE TO RELEASE
THE APPELLANT, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME
SECTION U/S.323, 341, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT IN THEIR CR.No.376/2023.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed this appeal praying to
set-aside the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.9747/2023 whereunder,
the anticipatory bail petition sought by this appellant -
accused in respect of Crime No.376/2023 of Yelahanka
New Town Police Station, registered for the offences under
Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"),
came to be rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.
3. Case of the prosecution is that; respondent No.2 has
filed a complaint stating that he was doing contract work
and he belongs to scheduled caste community and one
Sri.Bharath asked him to put up a compound wall to his
building and accordingly, he has constructed a compound
wall to the said property during July, 2023. In this regard
one Sri.Venu has given a complaint to the police station
and the complainant came to know that on the said
property, there is a dispute and decree has been passed.
It is further stated in the complaint that one Sri.Srikanth,
son of Sri.Venu's sister belonging to Balajiga community
enraged the complainant, concerning putting up of a
compound wall in the disputed property. On 28.09.2023 at
about 8.45 pm., when the complainant along with his
children went to C.Q.A.L Layout for chats, at that time, the
appellant - accused showing the beer bottle, threatened to
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
kill him with the help of the small children and abused him
taking his caste name in the public place and assaulted
him on his cheek. The said complaint came to be
registered in Crime No.376/2023 for the offences stated
supra. The appellant - accused who has arraigned as
accused in the F.I.R, apprehending his arrest filed
Crl.Misc.No.9747/2023 seeking anticipatory bail and the
same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is
challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused would
contend that there is a civil dispute with regard to the
property on which this respondent No.2 - complainant has
constructed the compound wall. He further submits that
the alleged abuse touching the caste and threatening the
complainant was not in the presence of any other person.
Therefore, it is not in the view of public. The complainant
has not been insulted in the presence of any other person.
Therefore, the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of the SC/ST Act are not attracted. Therefore, the bar
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted.
Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions /
Special Judge has passed the impugned order, which
requires interference by this Court.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 - State would contend that the
averments of the complaint clearly attracts the offences
under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
There is a bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to
entertain the petition for anticipatory bail. The Trial Court
considering the said aspect has rightly rejected the
anticipatory bail petition of the appellant-accused. On
these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend
that if the appellant - accused is granted anticipatory bail,
there is a threat to the complainant. With this, he prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court has perused the F.I.R, complaint and the impugned
order.
8. On perusal of the averments of the complaint, this
Court has observed that this complainant has constructed
the compound wall on the disputed property in respect of
which there is a Court decree. In that regard, one
Sri.Venu had filed a complaint against respondent No.2.
This appellant - accused is son of the elder sister of said
Sri.Venu. In the averments of the complaint, it is stated
that the appellant - accused has abused the complainant
taking his caste name and insulted him in the public place.
There is no mention of the persons who were present and
in whose presence this complainant was insulted by the
appellant - accused. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be
said that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of the SC/ST Act are attracted. Therefore, the bar under
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, would not apply. The other
offences alleged against this appellant - accused are not
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Without
considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions /
Special Judge has passed the impugned order, which
requires interference by this Court. In the result, the
following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
13.10.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9747/2023 by the
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special
Judge, Bengaluru is set-aside. The anticipatory bail
petition of the appellant - accused is allowed. The
appellant - accused is ordered to be released on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.376/2023 of Yelahanka
New Town Police Station, subject to the following
conditions;
(i) The appellant-accused shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
NC: 2024:KHC:1544
(ii) The appellant-accused shall voluntarily appear
before the Investigating Officer within fifteen
days from this day and execute the bail bond
and furnish the surety.
(iii) The appellant-accused shall co-operate with
the Investigating Officer in further
investigation.
(iv) The appellant-accused shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
