Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hanumanal Gavisiddappa Alias vs State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9209
CRL.A No. 100197 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100197 OF 2024
(U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HANUMANAL GAVISIDDAPPA
ALIAS H. K. GAVISIDDAPPA,
S/O. H. KUMARA SWAMY,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR,
R/O: NARAYANAPUR VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT,
PIN - 583119.
2. SRI. SAHUKARA HONNURA SWAMY
ALIAS S. HONNUR SWAMY
S/O. SAHUKARA MARIYANNA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR,
R/O: NARAYANAPUR VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
PIN - 583119.
KATTIMANI ....APPELLANTS
HIGH (BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD,
THROUGH SANDUR POLICE STATION,
DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583119.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9209
CRL.A No. 100197 of 2024
2. SRI. TAYAPPA S/O. MALIYAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O: AMBEDKAR COLONY,
NARAYANAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SANDUR, DISTRICT: BALLARI,
PIN - 583119.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y.DEVARADDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MANJUNATH G.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST
POA ACT, 1989 R/W 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE
THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH
SANDUR P.S. IN CRIME NO.0015/2024 BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 PASSED BY THE FILE OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BALLARI AT BALLARI FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(c), 3(1)(y), 3(1)(za), 3(1)(r)(s), OF
SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989, AND 341
AND 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri Praveena Y.Devaraddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri
Manjunath G.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The appellants herein are the accused No.1 and 2
in Crime No.15/2024 wherein the respondent/police have
registered a case against the appellants for the offences
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9209
u/sec.3(1)(c), 3(1)(y), 3(1)(za), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short, 'the Act').
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came
to be registered by Tayappa s/o Maliyappa stating that on
31.01.2024, Rangoli Competition was held by Shree Kshetra
Dharmasthala Manjunatha Gramabhiruddhi Yojana Trust. The
women of all the community and castes had participated in
the said competition. Sri Hanumanal Gavisiddappa s/o
Hanumanal Kumarswamy and Sahukar Honnurswamy started
abusing in a filthy language and insulting by naming the
caste and throwing the chair on the Kalasa, which the
women of scheduled castes had brought and prevented them
in participating the said competition.
4. After the incident, the women and children of
scheduled castes community went back to their respective
houses. On the same day in the evening around 5.30 p.m. to
6.30 p.m., Hanumanal Gavisiddappa insulted again by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9209
naming the caste of the complainant and others and also
they have been prevented from entering into the premises of
the temple. The accused No.2 again scolded and insulted by
naming the caste of the complainant and others and
prevented them by entering into the premises of the Temple.
It is further stated that, the said act of the appellants has
been recorded. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered
against two persons. The jurisdictional police have registered
a case in Crime No.15/2024 for the offences stated supra.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the ingredients of the provisions under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989
would not attract the case on hand. The appellants are
innocent of the alleged incident, due to rivalry between the
two groups, a false complaint has been lodged against the
appellants who are the priests of their respective temples.
6. It is further submitted that the appellants are the
permanent residents of Narayanapura village and they will
abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9209
their release on bail. Making such submission, the learned
counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that
the ingredients of the complaint do attract the provisions of
the Act as mentioned in the FIR. The appellants had
restrained the complainant and others including women and
children from entering into the premises of the temple on
account of that they belong to scheduled caste which is a
clear atrocity. Therefore, the anticipatory bail cannot be
granted to the appellants as there is a bar under Section 18-
A(2) of the Act. Making such submissions, the learned High
Court Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the averments of the
complaint, it appears that both the appellants being priests
of their respective temples disturbed the tranquility and
peacefulness in the locality. They have restrained the women
and children of scheduled caste from participating in Rangoli
Competition and also restrained them from entering into the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9209
premises of the temple only on account of they belong to the
scheduled caste. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion
that the appellants are not entitled for the relief as prayed
for. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
