Karnataka High Court
Giri @ A G Thimmaiah vs The State Of Karnataka By on 7 July, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3471 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. GIRI @ A. G. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O. GANAPATHY.
2. SAVITHA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
W/O. A.G.THIMMAIAH.
BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDENT OF YAVAKAPADI VILAGE & POST
MADIKERE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571212.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAPOKLU POLICE
KODAGU DISTRICT-560001.
... RESPONDENT
(SRI B. J. ESWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)
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.73/2014 OF
NAPOKLU P.S, KODAGU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(X) OF
THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - Police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered by the respondent - Police Station in Crime No.73/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and also other materials produced by the petitioners along with the petition. 3
4. Looking to the case of the prosecution in brief, it is alleged in the complaint that the complainant and his family members residing in Yevakapadi Village and the complainant has 4 acres of land in survey No.250/9 and has grown coffee, cardamom, pepper and orange in the said land. There is a dispute between the petitioners and the complainant in respect of the land. On 25-3-2014 around 10.00 a.m. when the complainant was nearby his house, petitioners No.1 and 2 came there and quarreled with him and abused him saying that he being Kudiya loafer, bastered lower caste and called the complainant to come outside the house and at that time complainant's wife and neighbours were also there and consoled him and after discussing with the elders of the community, he filed the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the present petitioners.
4
5. This petition is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and in view of Section 18 of the said Act, Court has to consider whether the offence under provision of said Act are constituted or not so as to see the maintainability of the present petition. Looking to the averments in the complaint, it is not specifically stated that the accused persons were knowing the complainant and his wife belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and after having the full knowledge of the said caste and with an intention to insult the complainant and his wife in the public view have abused the complainant and his wife. No specific allegations are made in the complaint apart from that alleged incident took place on 25-3-2014, whereas the complaint was filed on 19-4-2014 so nearly after lapse of more than 25 days. Looking to the averments made in the complaint at the end portion, it is also mentioned by the complainant there afterwards he discussed with the elders of the Kudiya community and thereby, he filed the 5 complaint. This also goes to show that it is deliberate and after thought. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the complaint dated 11-4-2014 that is much earlier to the present complaint of this case, wherein accused persons have filed a complaint against the complainant that the complainant along with other persons trespassed into the land, removed the fencing. Hence, they requested to take action against the complainant for the alleged acts. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, it clearly goes to show and also it cannot be said that the complainant has made out a case that there was offence under the provisions of the said Act. The material prima-facie goes to show that the petitioners herein have made out a case for their release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest for the offence punishable under Section 6 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered by the respondent
- Police Station in Crime No.73/2014, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
tamper with any of the prosecution
witnesses;
(iii) Petitioners shall make themselves
available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and 7
(iv) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk