Karnataka High Court
Babu @ S N Venkatesha (A-1) vs State By Chitradurga Kote P.S. on 3 December, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2485
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6645/2018
BETWEEN:
1. BABU @ S N VENKATESHA (A-1)
S/O NARAYANA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BUSINESSMAN
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT # 181-1
SARTHAVALLI AT POST
HONNAVALLI HOBLI
TIPTUR (RURAL)
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
2. VENKATESH C (A-2)
S/O H A CHANDDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
BUSINESSMAN
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
MEDEHALLI ROAD
VIJAYANAGAR, CHITRADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
BOTH ARE R/A VIJAYANAGARA
MEDEHALLI ROAD
CHITRADURGA DIST-577501.
3. RAJU @ S.N. RAJESH
S/O S V NARAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2
BUSINESSMAN
R/A 2ND BLOCK
TARABALUNAGARA
MEDEHALLI
CHITRADURGA TOWN & DIST-577501. :PETITIONERS
(BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE BY CHITRADURGA KOTE P.S.
REP/BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU -560001.
2. H MANJUNATH
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCCUPATION: DRIVER
MEDEHALLI VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DIST: 577501. :RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.122/2018 OF
CHITRADURGA KOTE POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,392,504,506 R/W 34
OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)&(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under S.438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in relation to Crime No.122/2018 of Chitradurga Kote Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act) and Sections 323, 392, 504 and 506 read with S.34 of IPC.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP.
3. Notice was served on respondent No.2 - complainant. Despite service of notice, he has not appeared.
4. The complaint allegations are that the complainant had borrowed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under chit transaction from the petitioners. Out of the said loan amount, he had returned Rs.90,000/- to Venkatesh and Rs.14,000/- to Babu. On 22.07.2018 morning at about 4 7.00 a.m. when he was in his Village at his house, three persons i.e., the petitioners herein came to his house and took him on motorcycles. His father Hanumanthappa and two other villagers and Basavaraja and Madhusudhan also went on the motorcycle along with them. The complainant was taken near a building at Thamatakallu Road and started forcing the complainant to give the balance amount. When the complainant requested for grant of some more time for repayment of the amount, the petitioners abused him in a filthy language by taking his caste name and thereafter assaulted him. Complainant's father and two other villagers came to the spot and pacified the said persons. At that time, the petitioners had snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and also threatened to take away his life.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that there is a delay of nine days in filing the complaint. The ground made out in the complaint are only an after-thought. In order to avoid the repayment 5 of the loan amount borrowed in the chit fund business the complainant has concocted a false story. On account of the case registered by the police, the petitioners are put to harassment. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that the petitioners have intentionally insulted the complainant by taking his caste name and assaulted the complainant - victim for recovery of loan amount. There are no valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of granting anticipatory bail they are likely to abscond and cause obstruction to further investigation. Further, there is a bar under S.18 of the Act.
7. The averments made in the complaint clearly disclose that there was a chit fund transaction between the complainant - victim and the petitioners. The complainant himself has admitted that he had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and out of which he had repaid Rs.90,000/- and Rs.14,000/-. Further he had sought for some more time 6 for repayment of the balance loan amount. Thus, it is evident that there was a financial transaction between the petitioners and the complainant which might have led to strained relationship. In this connection, a thorough investigation is needed in order to ascertain the veracity of the allegation made in the complaint.
8. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that the petitioners and complainant - victim are from different villages. As such, the petitioners had no knowledge about the caste or religion of the complainant. Under S.18 of the Act, there is a bar for granting bail.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dr.SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER" reported in AIR 2008 SC 1498, has observed as under:
" Para 83 (ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide...."7
10. There are no other specific allegations to indicate that the petitioners had intention to insult or humiliate a member of SC / ST community. Considering the allegations made in the complaint and other facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment to grant anticipatory bail. The petition deserves to be allowed subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with crime No.122/2018 of Chitradurga Kote Police Station, they shall be released on bail by obtaining personal bonds from them for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O. Further, the petitioners are also subjected to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Court below within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; 8
(ii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Court;
(iii) The petitioners shall put their attendance before the concerned Police Station, once in a month, on every 30th day of the month.
(iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the I.O.
and shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses.
Consequently, I.A.1/18 does not survive for
consideration and is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*