Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahendra R vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1721 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MAHENDRA R
S/O RANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.1810
23RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD
C BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 092.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR
Digitally signed
by HEMAVATHY HIGH COURT BUILDING
GANGABYRAPPA BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI MUNIANJINAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT No. 277
GANGABHAVI COLONY
SAHAKARANAGAR POST
KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA - 560 092.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE I.O IN
CR.No.321/2024 OF KODIGEHALLI P.S. BENGALURU DISTRICT
TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 351(2), 351(3)
OF BNS ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) OF SC/ST
(POA) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014 AND 3(1)(b) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set
aside the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.7733/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71),
whereunder anticipatory bail petition of this appellant -
accused sought in respect of crime No.321/2024 of
Kodigehalli Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (Hereinafter referred to as "BNS" for brevity) and
Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as
"SC and ST Act" for brevity) came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-
accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice
respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
3. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint stating
that Survey No.165 measuring 31 guntas land has been
granted to his grand father Mariyappa and litigation is
pending in Civil Court and it is in possession of their family
members. The appellant -accused has entered into an
agreement with respondent No.2 in respect of the said
property for use of his business on 10.07.2024 in the
name of his mother -Smt. Narayanamma and he did not
hand over the said documents to him or his mother
therefore, respondent No.2 on 17.07.2024 at about
8.45a.m. asked the appellant -accused to give copy of the
said documents and at that time the appellant -accused
abused him stating that all holemadigas are same, their
work is giving trouble to others and gave life threat.
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
Respondent No.2 has filed complaint on 19.08.2024 and
same came to be registered in Crime No.321/2024 of
Kodigehalli Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The
appellant-accused apprehending his arrest has filed
petition seeking anticipatory bail and same came to be
rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in
this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant -accused would
contend that the alleged incident has taken place on
17.07.2024 and complaint has been registered on
19.08.2024. There is delay of 32 days in filing complaint
and no explanation has been stated in the complaint. He
further submits that the appellant -accused has been
granted interim bail by Special Court and at that time he
cooperated with police in the investigation. On perusal of
the averments of the complaint there is no allegation of
abusing caste. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC
and ST Act is not attracted. With these, he prayed to
allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to appellant -
accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
would contend that the appellant -accused abused
respondent No.2 by taking his caste name and gave life
threat. The appellant -accused is absconding and his
presence is necessary for the investigation. Learned
Special Judge has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail
invoking bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act. With
this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused impugned order and other materials placed on
record.
7. The alleged incident has taken place on
17.07.2024 and complaint has been filed on 19.08.2024.
There is delay of more than one month in filing the
complaint and there is no explanation in the complaint for
delay. On perusal of the averments of complaint what is
stated by appellant -accused that all holemadigas are
same, their work is giving trouble to others and therefore,
there is civil litigation with regard to the property. At this
stage it cannot be said that the said aspect is abusing
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
respondent No.2 by taking his caste name. Therefore, bar
under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not attracted.
The offence alleged against the appellant -accused is not
punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The
appellant -accused has made out grounds for setting aside
impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.
8. In the result, the following
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.7733/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71 is
set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail petition of this
appellant -accused is allowed and he is ordered to be
released on bail in Crime No.321/2024 of Kodigehalli Police
Station in event of his arrest 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)
NC: 2024:KHC:44017
each with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the Investigation
Officer /jurisdictional Court.
ii. The appellant -accused shall voluntarily
appear before the Investigating
Officer/Jurisdictional Court within
fifteen days from today and execute
bail bonds and furnish surety.
iii. The appellant -accused shall cooperate
with Police in the Investigation.
iv. The appellant -accused shall not
threaten complainant and other
prosecution witness.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
