Karnataka High Court
Narasimhamurthy K. T. vs State By Tavarekere Police on 12 April, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRL.P.No.1545 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. Narasimhamurthy K.T.
s/o late Thimmaiah,
aged about 58 years.
2. Rohit s/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 24 years.
Both are r/at: Kallur Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
562120.
...Petitioners
(By Sri.B.Anand,Advocate
for Girish B.Baladare, Adv.)
AND
State by Tavarekere Police Station,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building
Bangalore - 560001.
...Respondent
2
(By Sri.K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP for respondent
Sri. T.N.Arakeshwara, Adv. for complainant)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.39/2018 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
341, 323, 504 and 506 read with 149 of IPC and Section
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are accused No.1 and 4
respectively in Crl.No.39/2018 registered by the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 504, 506, 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail.
3
2. Notice of this petition was given to the complainant and today learned counsel Sri. T.N.Arakeshwara represents the complainant. Heard the petitioners' counsel, the learned High Court Government Pleader and the counsel for the complainant.
3. On 06.02.2018, the respondent Police registered a complaint made by one Tirumalagiraiah. According to this complaint on 04.02.2018 at 5.30 p.m., the complainant was bringing raagi in an autorickshaw. As he came near the land of Narasegowda i.e,, the first petitioner, he and his sons viz., Dilip, Hemanth and Rohit and one Neelamma stopped the autorickshaw and attacked him. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner took the name of his caste, abused and insulted him and assaulted him.
4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the notification issued by the Commissioner for acquiring petitioners' land for the purpose of formation of housing sites, writ petition is pending before the High Court. In this writ petition on 05.02.2018, the High Court granted an interim order. The complainant Tirumalagiraiah is interested in the land proposed to be acquired. In fact he had filed caveat before the High Court. After this court passed the interim order, he resorted to making false complaint against the petitioners. The whole complaint is false. There is delay in lodging the complaint. The other accused persons have been released on bail and therefore the apprehension expressed by the petitioners of being arrested in connection with a false case is well founded and thus they are entitled to anticipatory bail. The learned counsel refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Subhash 5 Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Crl.P.No.416/2018.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the complainant was insulted in a public place within public view and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the photographs produced by the petitioners show that the incident took place. The complainant was insulted by the petitioners. The delay in lodging the complaint is explained. On 04.02.2018 itself, the complaint was made to the police; they visited the village and ascertained about the incident having taken place and thereafter complaint was registered on 06.02.2018. So according to him, there is no delay. He also submits that since the complainant was insulted by taking the name of his caste, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The learned 6 counsel also submits that if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners will tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.
7. If the caveat petition filed by the complainant and interim order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.1754/2018 are perused, it appears that the petitioners' land has been notified for acquisition and that the complainant is interested in this land. That apart, from the complaint itself it can be made out that some incident might have taken place. But it is difficult to say that the petitioners went to the extent of insulting the complainant taking the name of the caste. It is possible to arrive at this conclusion taking into consideration the fact that the 1st petitioner is police constable. Therefore it is highly impossible to say that the police constable, being aware of consequences of a crime like the alleged, goes to the extent of insulting the member of SC/ST being aware of the law. Moreover if 7 really on 04.02.2018 complaint had been lodged with the police station, the police would have registered the complaint immediately and thereafter would have come to the village for investigation. They would not have delayed the registration, especially when a complaint was made under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The truth in the complaint needs thorough investigation. This is the reason whey the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Crl.P.No.416/2018 has observed that as soon as a complaint is registered, to avoid false implication of the innocent, preliminary enquiry needs to be held. At this stage, I do not find caste based attack. Anticipatory bail can be denied only when the accused goes to the extent of insulting the member of SC/ST just because he belongs to that caste. Some incident takes place in the village and at the time of lodging complaint if it is coloured as caste based, it 8 requires thorough investigation. The truth in the complaint cannot be per se believed. Therefore I come to conclusion that this petition can be allowed. If at all there is a threat that the petitioners will destroy the evidence, he can be subjected to stringent conditions. Hence the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. In the event of petitioners being arrested by the respondent/police, in connection with Crime No.39/2018 registered by Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara they shall be released on bail, by obtaining from them a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer.
9iv. The petitioners shall appear before the investigation officer as and when their presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.
v. They shall not threaten the witnesses and destroy the evidence in whatsoever manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd