Karnataka High Court
Shri Manjayya Alias Manjunath S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
CRL.A No. 100229 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100232 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100229 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100232 OF 2024
IN CRL.A.NO.100229 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. PANCHAKSHARI @ PANCHAYYA,
S/O CHANNABASSAYYA HIREMATH, AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. REVADIHALA, TARIHAL,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD,
KARNATAKA-580026.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HUBLI RURAL POLICE STATION, DIST. DHARWAD,
R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally
signed by
2. ANASUYA MALLAPPA HARIJAN,
VINAYAKA B V
Location:
HIGH COURT
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
VINAYAKA
BV
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
R/AT. REVADIHALA, TQ. HUBBALLI,
BENCH
Date:
2024.05.15 DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA-580026.
12:03:52
+0530
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAEREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED NO.1/ APPELLANT
ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY HUBLI RURAL
POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO. 0081/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, 1860 AND U/S
3(1)(r)(s) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PENDING ON FILE OF 2ND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF THE OFFENCES UNDER THE
P.O.C.S.O. ACT AND S.C. AND S.T. (POA) ACT & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
CRL.A No. 100229 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100232 of 2024
IN CRL.A.NO. 100232 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MANJAYYA @ MANJUNATH
S/O. SHIVARUDRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. #218/1, DYAMAVVA GUDI ONI,
REVADIHALA, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580026.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HUBLI RURAL POLICE STATION, DIST. DHARWAD,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD.
2. ANASUYA MALLAPPA HARIJAN,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. REVADIHALA, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580026.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAEREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED
NO.2/APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND U/S
3(1)(r)(s) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF THE OFFENCES UNDER THE
P.O.C.S.O. ACT AND S.C. AND S.T. (POA) ACT IN HUBLI RURAL
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.0081/2024 BY IMPOSING CONDITIONS,
IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
CRL.A No. 100229 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100232 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No. 100229/2024 is filed by the
appellant/ accused no.1 seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail in the event of his arrest by the Hubballi Rural Police
Station in Crime No. 0081/2024 for the offences punishable
under Section 504, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') pending on the file
of learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad &
Special Court for trial of the offences punishable under the
P.O.C.S.O. Act and S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 100232/2024 is filed by the
appellant/ accused no.2 seeking to enlarge him on regular bail
in the aforesaid crime.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Smt. Anasuya
Harijan had filed a complaint stating that on 17.03.2024 in the
public place at Revadihal village, the appellants/accused
belonging to upper caste knowing fully well that complainant
and the aggrieved persons are belonging to deprived class,
abused them in filthy language taking their caste name. It is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
further case of the prosecution that a panchayat was convened
on 19.03.2024 to resolve the issue between the villagers.
However, the accused have justified their illegal acts resulted in
filing of the complaint which was registered by the jurisdictional
police in Crime No. 0081/2024. The jurisdictional police have
arrested accused no.2 on 18.04.2024 and continued
investigation. Accused no.1 is before this Court seeking for
grant of anticipatory bail whereas the accused no.2 is seeking
for regular bail.
4. Heard Sri Gourishankar Mot, learned counsel for accused
and learned HCGP for respondent no.1-State. Though notice is
served on the complainant in both the appeals, she remained
absent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/ accused submits that
the complainant Smt. Anasuya Harijan is a stranger to the
incident and she is not the victim of the incident. Her
complaint is based on the hear-say information furnished
through some villagers about use of filthy language by the
accused persons. It is further submitted that the complaint is
filed belatedly after 14 days from the date of alleged incident.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
It is also submitted that dispute is purely a civil dispute as the
accused have raised certain issues relating to allotment of sites
in their village to the deprived persons and to settle private
score, a false case has been filed against accused persons.
Hence, he seeks to allow both the appeals by enlarging accused
no.1 on anticipatory bail and accused no.2 on regular bail.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/ accused places
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.
319/2022 disposed off on 04.04.2022 wherein under
similar circumstances, this Court had granted anticipatory bail
to the accused.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the appeals and
submits that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 mandates that no
anticipatory bail shall be granted when the offences are alleged
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. He submits that
investigation is still under progress. Hence, granting of
anticipatory bail or regular bail would hamper investigation.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss both the appeals.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and meticulously perused the material available on
record.
9. On going through complaint averments it reveals that one
Smt.Anasuya Mallappa Harijan filed a complaint on 01.04.2024
alleging that accused persons knowing fully well that victims
belonged to deprived class, have abused them in filthy
language by taking their caste name. The complaint averments
also indicate that dispute is relating to allotment of sites.
Admittedly, the complainant Smt.Anasuya Harijan was not
present during the incident which has taken place on 17.03.204
as well as on 22.03.2024. Her complaint is based on the
information furnished by someone. Hence, this Court is of the
prima facie view that the averments made in the complaint are
required to be established/ proved during the course of trial.
The complaint averments also indicate that complaint is filed at
the instance of alleged victims and it is pertaining to allotment
of sites. The material available on record does not prima facie
indicate the commission of offences under the provisions of
'SC/ST Act'. Hence the bar under Section 18 and 18A of the
SC/ST Act has no application.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
10. It would be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rahna Jalal Vs. State of Kerala
and another 1 wherein it has been laid down as under:
"21. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act 1989 also contains similar provisions, which
exclude the application of Section 438 of CrPC. Sections
18 and 18-A provide as follows:
"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons
committing an offence under the Act.-- Nothing in
Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any
case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation
of having committed an offence under this Act.
18-A. No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the purposes
of this Act--
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a first information report against any
person; or
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for
the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an
accusation of having committed an offence under this
Act has been made, and no procedure other than that
provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.
(2) The provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not
apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any
judgment or order or direction of any Court."
22. Section 18 explicitly excludes the application of Section
438 of the CrPC in relation to any case involving the arrest of
(2021) 1 SCC 733
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
any person on an accusation of having committed an offence
under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 18-A specifically
excludes the application of the provisions of Section 438 of the
CrPC, notwithstanding any judgment, order or direction of a
court.
23. The provisions of Section 18 and 18A have been
interpreted by a three Judge Bench of this Court
Crl.A./2020 in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and
Others (2020) 4 SCC 727 ("Chauhan"). Justice Arun Mishra
speaking for himself and Justice Vineet Saran, while construing
these provisions, observed that:
"11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section
438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989
Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a
prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the
1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18-A(i)
shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while
deciding the review petitions."
24. The same view has been taken in the concurring
judgment of Justice S Ravindra Bhat, in the following
observations:
"32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and
anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J.
has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials
exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the
inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail."
25. Thus, even in the context of legislation, such as
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989, where a bar is interposed by the
provisions of Section 18 and Sub-section (2) of Section 18-
A on the application of Section 438 of the CrPC, this Court has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
held that the bar will not apply where the complaint does not
make out "a prima facie case" for the applicability of the
provisions of the Act. A statutory exclusion of the right to
access remedies for bail is construed strictly, for a purpose.
Excluding access to bail as a remedy, impinges upon human
liberty. Hence, the decision in Chauhan (supra) held that the
exclusion will not be attracted where the complaint does not
prima facie indicate a case attracting the applicability of the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989."
11. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and considering the
averments of the complaint and also the fact that there is
inordinate delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint, I am of
the considered view that the material available on record
including the complaint does not make out prima facie case
against the accused for having committed the offences under
the provisions of SC/ST Act.
12. Insofar as contention of the learned HCGP that
investigation is under progress and the grant of anticipatory
bail or regular bail to the accused would hamper investigation,
would be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions on the
accused.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
13. Considering the material available on record, I am of the
considered view that the accused have made out grounds for
allowing the appeals. Hence, I pass the following
ORDER
Crl. A. No. 100229/2024 filed by appellant/ accused no.1 is
allowed. Respondent-Police or any other Police in the State of
Karnataka is directed to enlarge the appellant/accused no.1 on
bail in the event of his arrest in Hubballi Rural Police Station in
Crime No. 0081/2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Section 504, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s)
of SC/ST Act pending on the file of learned 2nd Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad & Special Court for trial of
the offences punishable under the P.O.C.S.O. Act and S.C. &
S.T. (POA) Act subject to the following conditions.
(1) Appellant/accused no.1 shall appear before the
investigating officer within 20 days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall
execute his personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of
the investigating officer;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
(2) Appellant/accused no.1 shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation/ investigation as
and when called upon, without fail;
(3) Appellant/accused no.1 shall regularly appear before
the trial court without fail unless exemption is granted
by the trial Court for valid reasons;
(4) Appellant/accused no.1 shall not directly or indirectly
threaten or tamper the prosecution evidence /
witnesses;
(5) Appellant/accused no.1 shall not involve in any similar
matters in future;
(6) Appellant/accused no.1 shall mark his attendance
before the jurisdictional police on third Saturday of
every month between 9 am and 5 pm and mark his
attendance for a period of three months or till filing of
charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
Crl. A. No. 100232/2024 is allowed. Appellant/ accused
no.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Hubballi Rural Police
Station in Crime No. 0081/2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 504, 506, 34 of IPC and under
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act pending on the file of learned
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad & Special
Court for trial of the offences punishable under the P.O.C.S.O.
Act and S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, subject to the following
conditions.
(1) Appellant/accused no.2 is ordered to be enlarged
on bail on his executing personal bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the trial court;
(2) Appellant/accused no.2 shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation/ investigation
as and when called upon, without fail;
(3) Appellant/accused no.2 shall appear before the trial
court regular without fail unless exemption is
granted by the trial Court for valid reasons;
(4) Appellant/accused no.2 shall not directly or
indirectly threaten or tamper the prosecution
evidence / witnesses;
(5) Appellant/accused no.2 shall not involve in any
similar matters in future;
(6) Appellant/accused no.2 shall mark his attendance
before the jurisdictional police on third Saturday of
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6969
every month between 9 am and 5 pm and mark his
attendance for a period of three months or till filing
of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVV
CT:BCK
