Karnataka High Court

Vinod Gowda vs State By on 21 January, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                         -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:2412
                                                CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                    BEFORE

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2164 OF 2024

            BETWEEN:

            1.    VINOD GOWDA
                  S/O GOVINDARAJU
                  AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                  R/AT NO. 365/61
                  CHIKKASANDRA,
                  HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
                  T. DASARAHALLI,
                  BENGALURU - 560 057.

            2.    C NANJAPPA
                  S/O CHOWDAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

            3.    KAVITHA RANI N
Digitally         D/O C NANJAPPA
signed by         AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
MALATESH
KC
                  APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE
Location:         R/AT NO. 916,
HIGH
COURT OF          SHIVAKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
KARNATAKA         DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
                                                         ...APPELLANTS
            (BY SRI. PARTHA M AND
                SRI. RAJA K.P, ADVOCATES)

            AND:

            1.    STATE BY
                  BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
                  REPRESENTED BY
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:2412
                                   CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024




     HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER
     BANGALORE - 560001.

2.   MAKUNTE KOTRESH
     S/O MAKUNTE MANJAPPA
     C/O OFFICE AT NO.7
     1ST CROSS, NS. IYENGAR
     STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM
     COLLEGE BEHIND,
     SHESHADRIPURAM,
     BANGALORE CITY - 560 020.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. ULLAS M, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
    SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

      THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 04.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL        JUDGE      BANGALORE       (CCH-71)     IN
CRL.MISC.NO.9125/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.362/2024,       FOR     THE      OFFENCES     P/U/S
126(2),115(2),352,351(2)    R/W   3(5)   OF   BNS,   SEC.
3(1)(r),3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015, OF THE 1st
RESPONDENT BAGALAGUNTE P.S., WHICH IS PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF CCH-71, CITY COMPLEX,
BANGALORE CITY.

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

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                    ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Partha M., learned counsel representing

learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 and Smt. Nandini B., learned counsel

representing learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the SC & ST (POA) Act' for short) with the following

prayers:

"Wherefore the appellants above named humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 04/11/2024 passed by the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.9125/2024 and enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.362/2024 for the offences punishable under section 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) of BNS and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 of the 1st respondent, Bagalagunte Police station, which is pending before the Hon'ble Court of CCH-71, City Court Complex, Bangalore City in the above case in the interest of justice."

3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary

for disposal of the present appeal.

4. A complaint came to be lodged with

Bagalagunte Police Station, Peenya Sub-Division,

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

Bengaluru City by the complainant namely Sri Makunte

Kotresh against the appellants. On the basis of the said

complaint, the respondent-police have registered the case

in Crime No.362/2024 on 25.09.2024 for the following

offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352,

351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),

2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. The gist of the complaint averments reveals

that the complainant, being the practicing advocate, was

given the hand summons to be served on the 2nd

defendant in O.S.No.2888/2023. When he proceeded to

serve the 2nd defendant, as there was an altercation, in

such an altercation with an intention to degrade the

complainant, the appellants herein abused the

complainant in filthy language, taking out his caste name

and thus, he sought action against the appellants.

6. Police, after registering the case, are

investigating the matter. In the meantime, the appellants

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

herein approached the learned Special Judge with a

request for grant anticipatory bail.

7. Learned Special Judge after entertaining the

objections of the 2nd respondent/complainant and the 1st

respondent/learned Public Prosecutor, vide order dated

04.11.2024 rejected the anticipatory bail petition.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants

are before this Court.

9. Sri M. Partha, learned counsel for the

appellants, reiterating the contentions urged in the appeal

memorandum, contended that on reading of the complaint

in entirety, there is no allegation which would prima facie

attract the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act. Therefore,

there is no embargo for this Court to entertain the

anticipatory bail application in view of Section 18 of the SC

& ST (POA) Act.

10. He also pointed out that a trivial incident has

been blown out of proportion in the form of a criminal

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

complaint. Since the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2888/2023 is

now represented by an advocate by filing a vakalat, the

apprehension of the 2nd respondent stands quelled and

therefore, sought for the grant of anticipatory bail.

11. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader and Ms. Nandini, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 oppose the appeal grounds

vehemently.

12. They further contended that the prima facie

materials on record would definitely disentitle the

appellants from seeking an order of grant of anticipatory

bail in view of Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act and

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the materials on record meticulously. On such

perusal of the material on record, the following point

would arise for consideration:

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

1) Whether the appellants have made out the case for grant of anticipatory bail?

14. In the case on hand, the incident, as is

contended by the complainant, said to have occurred on

25.09.2024 between the period of 1:00 p.m. and

5:15 p.m. The first information was lodged with the

Bagalagunte Police Station around 8:45 p.m. The gist of

the complaint averments has been considered by this

Court meticulously.

15. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that he

was earlier working as an advocate in the office of Dr.

V.S.Anand, Cubbonpet. It is further contended that Vinod

Gowda and Nanjappa, are appellant Nos.1 and 2 before

this Court, who were acquainted with him and they knew

the caste of the 2nd respondent.

16. He has specifically stated that the said

Nanjappa is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.2888/2023 and

when the complainant went to serve the summons by

hand to the 2nd defendant, who is the 3rd appellant before

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

this Court, the incident occurred wherein the appellant

Nos. 1 and 2 abused him by taking out his caste name and

also confined him in a place. It is also alleged that 3rd

appellant held the shirt of the 2nd respondent and abused

him.

17. On close reading of the complaint averments, it

is noticed that except for using the abusive words, other

averments would not ipso facto attract the provisions of

the SC & ST (POA) Act, whereby the embargo Section 18

of the said Act, cannot be applied to the facts and

circumstances of this case.

18. Having said thus, since there is a complaint

registered and the Investigation Agency has not been able

to arrest the present appellants and the investigation has

also been crippled to considerable extent, directing the

appellants to join the investigation by appearing before

the Investigation Officer and interrogating the appellants

for a limited period and thereafter enlarging them on a bail

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

would meet the ends of justice in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

19. Accordingly, without expressing any further

opinion on the merits of the case, as is held in a catena of

decisions, the point is answered in the affirmative, and the

following order is passed:

ORDER

a. Appeal is allowed.

b. The appellants are directed to join the

investigation by appearing before the

Investigation Officer on 03.02.2025 at

10:00 a.m. If necessary appellants be

taken to custody.

c. Investigation Officer is directed to

conclude the custodial investigation of the

appellants, if any, on the very same day

before 3:00 p.m., and thereafter enlarge

the appellants by taking a bond in a sum

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2412

of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the

Investigation Officer.

d. The appellants shall not tamper the

prosecution witnesses in any manner.

e. The appellants shall not leave the

jurisdiction of Benglauru and Davanagere

without prior permission.