Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O Fakkirappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204
CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100184 OF 2024
(U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O FAKKIRAPPA MUDAKANNAVAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O D.C.OFFICE ROAD, IJARILAKMAPUR,
HAVERI-581110.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAVANOOR P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DAHRWAD.
2. PRAKASH S/O HONNAPPA KALASUR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE
Digitally signed R/O KURUBAR MALLUR, SAVANUR TQ.,
by SAROJA DIST. HAVERI-581118.
HANGARAKI
- RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI P.V.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
KARNATAKA SRI VIJAYKUMAR M. MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
DHARWAD
BENCH
DHARWAD THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN SAVANOOR P.S.
CRIME NO.51/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 306, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND 3(1) (r), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va)
OF SCHEDULED CASTE (SC) AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (ST)
PREVENTION OF ATROCITY) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, IN SO FAR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204
CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Appellant/ accused No.1 feeling aggrieved by the order of trial Court on the file of I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Haveri in Crl. Misc. No. 201/2024 dated 21.03.2024 in rejecting the anticipatory bail petition filed U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. preferred this appeal.
2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the records, so also the impugned order under appeal, the following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the impugned order under appeal passed by the trial Court in rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by accused No.1 U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is perverse, capracious and legally not sustainable?
2) Whether interference of this Court is required?
5. On careful perusal of the material placed on record it would go to show that on the strength of the complaint filed by Prakash son of Honnappa Kalasur, criminal law was set into -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 motion by registering the case in Savanur Police Station Crime No. 51/2024 for the offences punishable U/s 506, 504, 149, 306 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act' for the sake of brevity).
6. The complaint allegations are to the effect that on 04.03.2024 complainant received phone call from accused No.1 and informed that the son of complainant has kidnapped one Chaitra and threatened to do away their life and so also abused in filthy language by taking caste name of the complainant. Accused No.1 alleged to have called the complainant with his son to his house and to settle the matter by giving Rs. 5 lakhs, otherwise he will kill the son of complainant. The complainant has compromised the matter for Rs. 3 lakhs, thereafter on 11.03.2024 the said amount was paid to accused no.1 and son of the complainant went to the house of his grandfather at Kalsoor. On 12.03.2024 on account of harassment, at 10.00 a.m. son of the complainant has committed suicide by consuming poison and he was immediately shifted to Haveri hospital. It is alleged that the death of son of complainant is on account of abetment caused by accused No.1 and other -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 accused named in the FIR in harassing which forced him to commit suicide. On these allegations made in the complaint, a case came to be registered in Savanur P.S. Crime No. 51/2024 for the aforesaid offences.
7. The learned HCGP and the counsel for respondent No.2 have filed their separate objections opposing the anticipatory bail petition of accused No.1 contending that there are sufficient material evidence against accused No.1 for the alleged abetment caused to the son of the complainant due to which he has committed suicide by consuming poison. The investigation in this case is not yet completed. There is evidence to show that accused No.1 has accepted money from the complainant in the second floor of the Court premises and the same is recorded in the CCTV installed in the Court premises. If accused No.1 is released on anticipatory bail, he may influence the police officials and other witnesses and also tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the anticipatory bail application. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024
8. Learned HCGP for respondent No.2 has contended that there is legal bar to maintain anticipatory bail petition U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. in terms of Sec. 18 of the 'SC/ST Act'.
9. Learned counsel for accused No.1 relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (AIR 2020 SC 5584) wherein it has been observed and held at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as under:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view".
It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view." In the present case also, the alleged incident said to have taken place in the house of accused No.1. Therefore, prima facie the offence U/s 3(1)(r) of the 'SC/ST Act' is not attracted. Therefore under these circumstances there is no legal impediment to entertain the anticipatory bail filed by accused No.1.
10. Looking to the complaint allegations and the materials produced by accused No.1, it would go to show that accused -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 No.1 has no role in the son of complainant kidnapping accused No.4 named in the FIR. Learned counsel for accused No.1 has produced certified copy of the complaint filed by Kallappa Mahadevappa Dundanur, the father of Chaitra dated 07.03.2024 alleging that his daughter is missing from the house of his maternal uncle where she was pursing her studies. On the basis of such missing complaint, case was registered in Haveri Women Police Station Crime No. 21/2024 for the offence punishable U/s 363 of IPC against unknown accused. The present complaint is filed on 13.03.2024 alleging that accused No.1 has called the complainant over phone for settlement of the case registered in Haveri Women Police Station Crime No. 21/2024 for kidnapping accused No.4 who is the daughter of accused No.3 named in the FIR.
11. If the entire complaint allegations are taken into consideration in the light of earlier missing complaint filed by accused No.3 much earlier on 07.03.2024 then it would go to show that the role of this accused No.1 in the entire episode is calling upon the complainant for settling the matter registered in Haveri Women Police Station Crime No. 21/2024 in kidnapping of accused No.4 shown in the FIR registered in -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 Savanur Women Police Station Crime No. 51/2024. The complaint allegations also would go to show that complainant was called by accused No.1, who is a senior practicing Advocate at Haveri, for settlement of the matter.
12. Learned counsel for accused relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1 wherein it has been observed and held at paragraph no. 25 as under:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
13. Learned counsel for accused No.1 also places reliance on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikas Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1196/2018 dated 22.02.2024) wherein also -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 the legal requirement for the commission of offence U/s 306 IPC has been considered and quashing of proceedings order passed by the High Court came to be confirmed.
14. In the present case, looking to the materials placed on record, it would go to show that the role of accused No.1 is limited only to the extent of being involved in settlement of the matter of missing complaint registered in Haveri Women Police Station Crime No. 21/2024. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 over phone stated that son of complainant has kidnapped accused No.4-Chaitra, named in the FIR. The accused No.1 called complainant with the elders for settling the matter. Therefore under these circumstances and looking to the role of accused No.1, no any inference can be drawn at this stage to hold that it is at the instigation of accused No.1, the son of complainant has committed suicide. It is true that investigation in this case is not yet completed.
15. In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh (SLP (Crl.) No. 9949/2023 dated 01.03.2024) at paragraph no. 12 has been held as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 "12. There is no gainsaying that custodial interrogation is one of the effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not required that by itself may also not be a ground to release an accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious nature. However, a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient. The State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation."
In view of the principles enunciated in this decision merely because the investigation is not completed and the custodial interrogation is required, cannot be a ground to reject the anticipatory bail petition.
16. It is not in dispute that accused is a senior practicing Advocate at Haveri and permanent resident of the address given in the cause title. The role of accused No.1 is that he has participated in the settlement of matter between the son of complainant and Chaitra. The allegations made in the complaint regarding the alleged threat and abusing the complainant by taking name of caste, are all the matter of trial. The apprehension of the learned HCGP can be met by imposing
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024 appropriate conditions. Consequently, proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/ accused no.1 U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The order passed by the trial Court on the file of I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Haveri in Crl. Misc. No. 201/2024 dated 21.03.2024 is hereby set aside.
The appellant/ accused no.1 in the event of his arrest in Savanoor Police Station Crime No. 51/2024 registered for the offences punishable U/s 506, 504, 149, 306 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, is ordered to be released subject to the following conditions.
i) The appellant/accused no.1 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal bond and surety bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum amount;
ii) The appellant/accused no.1 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6204 CRL.A No. 100184 of 2024
iii) The appellant/accused no.1 shall produce the address proof documents of himself and that of his surety.
iv) The appellant/accused no.1 shall appear before the investigation as and when called for the purpose of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVV CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13