Karnataka High Court
Shiva And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 9 September, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200600/2020
Between:
1. Shiva S/o Somanath Dhadde,
Age 23 years, Occ. Agriculture,
2. Jagdish S/o Anilkumar Dhadde,
Age 25 years, Occ. Agriculture,
3. Ratan S/o Kashappa Dhadde,
Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture,
4. Rajkumar S/o Kasheppa Wadgave,
Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculture
All R/o Jaigaon Village,
Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Sanjay A.Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka through
Police, Bhalki Rural Police Station,
Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar.
Represented by
Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
2
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench.
2. Ashabai W/o Ashok Suryavanshi,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o Jaigaon Village, Tq. Bhalki,
Dist. Bidar.
... Respondents
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, HCGP for R1;
Sri Sandeep Vijayakumar, Panel Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code
of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the respondent
police/Bhalki Rural Police Station, Tq. Bhalki Dist.Bidar to
enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with Crime No.71/2020 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 354, 504,
506 and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (PA) Amendment at, 1989 as per FIR
(now pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Bidar).
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
(Through Virtual Court) This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the respondent - Police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest. 3
2. It is the case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes member. It is stated that on 03.06.2020 in the morning 10.30 a.m. the accused No.6 was driving the tractor behind the house of the complainant at that time the complainant's daughter, son and their friend were playing with water by sprinkling the water and accidentally water was fallen on accused No.6 and this being agitated by accused No.6, called upon to all the accused and all of them trespassed into the house of the complainant and abused in filthy language and also with reference to her caste and then all the accused have assaulted the complainant and her son.
3. It is further stated that the accused have also pulled the complainant as well as her son and caused hurt and also assaulted the complainant's sister in-law when she had come to rescue the quarrel and thus assaulted and committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the complainant and also assaulted the 4 complainant's mother-in-law. It is also made allegation that the petitioner and other accused knowing fully well that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes, therefore abused with reference to caste. Therefore, with these allegations a complaint is lodged and based on that a crime is registered in Crime No.71/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PA) Act) by the Bhalki Rural Police Station, Bidar District.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
5. As per sub-section (3) and (5) of Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a notice is issued to 5 the respondent No.2 who is a complainant herein and the learned High Court Government Pleader had filed memo with endorsement for having served the notice to respondent No.2-complainant. As per sub-section (12) of Section 15-A of the Act, Sri Sandeep Vijayakumar, who is a Panel Advocate on the list of the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench is engaged on behalf of respondent No.2.
6. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that even though the complaint is taken into consideration on its prima facie value but it is not within the public view but it is inside the house of the complainant. Therefore, the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (PA) Act are not attracted and when the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act are kept aside the other offences are minor in nature and at the most the maximum punishment prescribed is 7 years of imprisonment.
6
7. Further submitted that the allegations made with reference to caste are vague and general in nature, which do not attract the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act. Therefore, prayed to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the complaint averments prima facie shows that the petitioners and other accused have criminally trespassed in to the house of the complainant and knowing fully well that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes abused with reference to caste and also assaulted the complainant, her son, sister-in-law and mother in-law and also pulling the sari of the complainant and committed the offence of outraging the modesty of woman. With these prima facie allegations are made that the petitioners have committed the offence with reference to the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act. Therefore, prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
7
9. Upon considering the prima facie averments made in the complaint that the petitioners and other accused have criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and assaulted and also abused filthily with reference to caste. There are specific averments made in the complaint with reference to the caste filthy language is used while abusing the complainant this prima facie shows that the petitioners and other accused knew the fact that the complainant belongs to scheduled castes.
10. Furthermore on perusing the prima facie averments made in the complaint that there are several allegations against the petitioners and other accused that these petitioners have abused filthily by taking caste of the complainant. Therefore, there is prima facie allegation is made with reference to caste, abused filthily and also the allegation is that petitioners have assaulted the complainant, her sister-in-law by pulling sari and assaulted and they have sustained bleeding injuries. 8
11. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offences as alleged and considering the parameters to grant bail by following the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam and others vs. State of Telangana and another [(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 743], wherein at para 7, it has been held as under :-
"7. The factors to be considered while granting bail have been held by this Court to be the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the course of justice, etc. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. For the purpose of bail, the court must not undertake meticulous examination for the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. (Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan - (2012) 12 SCC 180]."
12. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and 9 another [(2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496], wherein at para 9, it has been held as under:-
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are :
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
[See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] (SCC p.31, para 18), Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280], and Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598]."
10
13. Therefore the court is of the opinion considering the severity of the offences as alleged as they had committed the alleged offences as against woman. I am of the opinion the petitioners are disentitled to take the benefit of the anticipatory bail to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest. Therefore, the present bail petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn