Karnataka High Court

M. O. Abraham vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                            -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30104
                                                  CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1245 OF 2024
                BETWEEN:

                1.    M. O. ABRAHAM
                      S/O LATE THAMPI
                      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                2.    ASHEEM ABRAHAM
                      S/O M O ABRAHAM
                      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
                      BOTH ARE CHRISTIANS BY
                      CASTE RESIDING AT NO.49,
                      MANAMEL FARM
                      GADDIGE MAIN ROAD
                      BOGADI,
                      MYSURU-570026.
                3.    GOPAL RAO N
                      S/O LATE NAGENDRA RAO
Digitally
signed by             AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
LAKSHMI T             RESIDING AT NO.4774
Location:             NR MOHALLA 4TH CROSS
High Court of
Karnataka             SHIVAJI RAO
                      MYSURU-570007.
                4.    MANJUNATH M C
                      S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
                      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                      RESIDING AT NO.108
                      SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
                      MAJJEGEPURA
                      K R SAGARA POST
                      MANDYA 571607.
                                                           ...APPELLANTS
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:30104
                                 CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024




(BY SRI. V LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY KRS POLICE STATION,
     REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BANGALORE-560001.

2.   RAMANANDA B L
     S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH B L
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.8
     2ND MAIN ROAD
     KUKKARAHALLI
     MYSURU-571507.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21.06.2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA IN CRL.MISC.NO.368/2024.
B. PASS AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.84/2024 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 427,506,504,149,447,323 OF
IPC R/W SEC.3(1)(r),3(1)(g),3(1)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA)
AMENDMENT ACT 2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                                -3-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:30104
                                         CRL.A No. 1245 of 2024




                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and

learned counsel for respondent No.2-defacto complainant and

perused the material on record.

2. Rejection of petition filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge

has been assailed in this appeal by the appellants / accused

Nos.1 to 4.

3. Appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in

Cr.No.84/2024 of K.R.Sagar Police Station, Mandya, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(g),

3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

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

Act') and under Sections 427, 506, 504, 447 and 323 r/w

Section 149 IPC.

4. Complaint is lodged by respondent No.2 alleging

that, he is a Managing Director of V.Pram Power Company Pvt.

Ltd. and he is an Electrical Engineer. He obtained permission

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

from the Government to start a small power house in Cauvery

Kharab land situated near Devaraya Dam of Edathittu village in

Belagola Hobli. In this connection, he took permission from

various Departments of the Government and obtained license

from the Gram Panchayath. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being the

father and son are the neighbouring land owners in Sy.Nos.53

and 54. Before starting the power house, accused Nos.1 and 2

filed a civil case before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court,

Srirangapatna and also in the High Court, rejected by both the

Courts. Permission was granted to the complainant to start a

small power house. The property was measured through ADLR

and 30 guntas of land was marked for starting a small power

house. Complainant installed stone poles with barbed wire

compound wall and on 09.03.2024, performed the inaugural

function of the work inviting the local MLA, Departmental

Directors, Chairman of MUDA and others. At that time, at the

instigation of accused Nos.1 to 3, accused No.4, a member of

Majjigepura Gram Panchayath along with his associates

trespassed into the property, abused the complainant in filthy

language referring to his caste, removed the stone fence and

assaulted complainant's brother Prabhu on his face and also his

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

brother's son by name Kaushik on his face and head. Further,

they threatened them with dire consequences saying that they

will finish them if they start the power house in the said land.

It is further stated in the complaint that one Sadananda and

Amit intervened and pacified the quarrel and shifted both the

injured to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, wherein they were treated as

out patients.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended

that the entire allegations are false and the complaint is lodged

belatedly implicating the appellants in view of the civil dispute

between the two parties. He contended that there is no nexus

with the alleged crime and the appellants, whereas the

complainant after an inordinate delay of more than two months

has filed a frivolous complaint. He contended that even

according to the complainant, accused Nos.1 to 3 were not at

all present at the time of alleged incident and the allegation

that accused No.4 assaulted complainant's brother and his

brother's son is utterly false, since in the earliest version given

before the Doctor his name was not mentioned as an accused,

on the other hand, as per the history furnished, the assault was

by an unknown person. He further contended that the alleged

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

incident according to the complainant is on account of starting

a small power house and therefore, it cannot be said that the

ingredients of the offence alleged to have committed under the

SC/ST (PoA) Act has been made out. He, therefore, contended

that the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating

these aspects has mechanically passed an order rejecting the

prayer for anticipatory bail and sought to set aside the

impugned order and allow the appeal by granting anticipatory

bail to the appellants.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State has contended that a plain reading of

the complaint averments clearly disclose a prima facie case

against the appellants for the offences registered in the FIR.

He contended that at the instigation of accused Nos.1 to 3,

accused No.4 has come to the spot along with others and

picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused him in filthy

language referring to his caste and assaulted his brother and

brother's son. He submits that the wound certificates of the

two injured confirms the incident. He, therefore, contended

that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST

(PoA) Act, the appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended

that immediately after the incident, the complainant has

approached the jurisdictional police. Since no case was

registered, he was constrained to approach the Director of Civil

Rights and Enforcement (DCRE), who after an enquiry has

found substance in the complaint and accordingly on the report

filed by the DCRE, the police have registered the above case.

He, therefore, contended that the delay in lodging the

complaint has been explained by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further

contended that prior to setting up of power house in the land of

the complainant, accused No.1 had filed a case before the Civil

Court and High Court and the same were rejected by both the

Courts and therefore, to take vengeance accused Nos.1 to 3

instigated accused No.4 to commit the offence. He contended

that in the complaint, it is specifically stated that at the

instigation of accused Nos.1 to 3, accused No.4 along with

others have come to the spot and abused the complainant

referring to his caste and also assaulted him and caused injury.

He, therefore, contended that there is a prima facie case

against the appellants and sought to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

9. I have perused the complaint averments. The

incident is alleged to have taken place on 09.03.2024 at about

12.30-12.45 p.m. A perusal of the complaint averments

clearly goes to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 named in the FIR

were not present at the spot when the incident took place.

According to the complainant, at the instigation of the said

accused, accused No.4 along with his associates trespassed into

the land and removed the barbed wire fence and abused him in

filthy language taking the name of his caste. It is further

alleged that accused No.4 assaulted complainant's brother by

name Prabhu and his nephew by name Kaushik and caused

injuries to them.

10. Case is registered on 21.05.2024, which is after

2 months 12 days from the date of incident. Learned counsel

for respondent No.2 has made available a copy of the letter

dated 16.05.2024 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Police

(in-charge), DCRE, Bengaluru to Superintendent of Police,

Mandya District, Mandya. It appears that, based on a

representation dated 29.03.2024 submitted by the complainant

to the DCRE, the said letter was issued. Based on which, case

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

came to be registered. The said representation was given after

20 days from the date of incident.

11. It is relevant to see that as per the complaint

averments, accused No.4 is a member of Majjigepura Gram

Panchayat. Hence, the name of the said accused and he being

a Member of a Grama Panchayat was within the knowledge of

the complainant. However, in the history furnished to the

K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, it is mentioned that the assault is by one

unknown person with hands. There was no reason for the

complainant to give history before the doctor that he was

assaulted by an unknown person. In the wound certificate,

which was issued subsequently it is stated that the assault was

by a known person. In the background of delay in lodging the

complaint the same assumes importance and raises a doubt in

the mind of the Court about the averments made in the

complaint.

12. Insofar as the abusive words alleged to have been

used by accused No.4, omnibus allegations are made that

accused No.4 and his associates have abused the complainant.

As per the wound certificates of the two injured made available

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

by the learned High Court Government Pleader, both of them

have sustained simple injuries and they are treated as out

patients.

13. The learned Sessions Judge, though noticed that the

allegations against accused Nos.1 to 3 that they abetted

accused No.4 to commit the offence, but no such Section was

included in the FIR, rejected the prayer seeking anticipatory

bail. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has also observed

that the police called the appellants to the station and recorded

their statements which indicate that they never went to the

spot and committed any offence. However, considering the

undertaken given by them that they will not trouble the

complainant in any manner, came to a conclusion that they are

unnecessarily interfering with the complainant's possession.

The said reasons for dismissing the petition was not proper.

14. The appellants have undertaken to offer sufficient

surety and co-operate with the Investigation of the case. No

criminal antecedents against the appellants were brought to the

notice of the Court. Hence, by imposing necessary conditions,

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

they can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the

following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed.

ii. The Order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Court of

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in

Crl.Misc.No.368/2024 is set aside.

iii. Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.84/2024 of

K.R.Sagar Police Station, Mandya, are ordered to be released in

the event of their arrest, subject to following conditions:

i. They shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, with two sureties for the likesum.

ii. They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Court if there is any change in the address.

iii. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:30104

learned trial Judge, till the conclusion of investigation or until further orders.

iv. They shall participate in the investigation of the case, whenever called upon to do so.

v. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

vi. They shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

Violation of any of the above conditions shall result in

cancellation of the bail.

The observations made in this order is confined to the

disposal of this appeal.