Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs S Prabhu on 7 March, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9692
CRL.A No. 421 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOTE POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)
AND:
1. S. PRABHU,
SON OF SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
LABOUR WELFARE OFFICER IN KSRTC,
CHITRADURGA.
Digitally signed PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
by GAYATHRI N DWARALU VILLAGE,
Location: High KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
Court of TUMKURU DISTRICT.
Karnataka
2. HANUMANTHAPPA DURGA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
CHITRADURGA JAIL,
DALITH SANGATANEGALA OKKUTA,
VAIBHAVA COMPUTERS,
INFRONT OF DISTRICT TREASURY,
CHITRADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K., ADVOCATE AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9692
CRL.A No. 421 of 2022
SRI. KARTHIK YADAV U., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2021 PASSED IN
CR.NO.128/2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
295A, 505(2) OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(t),3(1)(u),3(1)(v) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT AND DIRECT THAT THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO
CUSTODY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State for setting aside
the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crime
No.128/2021, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has
granted bail to respondent No.1/accused No.1 in a case
relating to the said Crime number registered at
Chitradurga Kote Police Station for the offence punishable
under Section 295(A), 505(2) of IPC and Section 3(1)(t),
3(1)(u), 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
NC: 2024:KHC:9692
2. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State and the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1/accused No.1 and perused
the material on record.
3. It is alleged in the complaint lodged by one
Hanumanthappa Durga that the accused have objected to
keep the photo of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar during a function held
for celebrating the Independence day on 15.08.2021 at
07:30 to 08:00 a.m., and they forcibly removed the photo
etc.
4. Accused No.1 was arrested on 16.08.2021. He
preferred an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and
Accused No.2 preferred an application under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge vide order dated
18.08.2021 was pleased to allow the application filed by
accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and rejected
the prayer of accused No.2 seeking anticipatory bail. Grant
of bail to accused No.1 is under challenge in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:9692
5. A perusal of the complaint averments reveal
that the complainant was not present at the spot when the
incident took place. The complaint is lodged on the next
day. It is stated that the complainant was informed by
other employees about the incident. Be that as it may,
accused No.1 was arrested and therefore, there was no
bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act to entertain
his bail petition preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The
learned Sessions Judge has observed that he is a
Government employee and he has a right to put forth his
grievance during the course of Trial against the allegations
made and no pre-conviction is necessary without holding a
trial for the alleged offences, which are not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/accused No.1 submits that, the entire proceedings
have been stayed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7058/2021
preferred by the said accused. The same is not disputed.
NC: 2024:KHC:9692
7. There are no grounds made out to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. There
is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LDC
CT:SNN
