Karnataka High Court
Mallanagouda Devaraddi vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2010
_AND .. u
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAW
CRICUIT BENCH AT DHARwAD_:""" 'L
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY 01? JA1€UA§'SI,,: 2i) :9 F1" ~ V.
BEFoRE_ A % %
THE 1-ION'BLE MR.JU'ST§VCE'VA.1t§}tLI %
CRIMINAL 1'-"}3:TITI(:)ii_tl:Sf -%M1§0.,LV81té9}:2{i)osi§f
BETWEEN:
Mallanagouda Devaradd-i' if
S/0. NinganagQu':ia"_'- V .»
Age: 46 years. =
Occz KSRTC5Co'dd91iCt<>r " ;
Ilka} Depot, "
Bagalkot D1'su<.i.¢: 1"; ' "
.... .. Petitioner.
(By Sri. R.NIt,,}avvetVi', _Ad'y;}.:':'_''_,tw %
pi' Karnettaka
Dharwad_>'
Pfeliice Station, Hungund
RepA.b}r'SSP,V."LHigh Court Circuit Bench,
Respondent
P.H.Got1«:hindi, HCGP) r___('\r*\--..--»* This Criminal Petition is filed under Section "438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail i-n"'tliee'e.Vent of his arrest in connection with Crime No,;1*2SV'.ofsI'2G~O9 registered at Hungund Police Station, Hungulrid pending on the file of the Prl. Dist 8t_..Sessio'ns ._J't":dgs;, Bagalkot and pass such other .Order or _C)rd..ersl as "this; A' Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in,the'-cii'c'u-mstances. of the case.
This Crl.P. is coming on 'for'~..()rders Court made the following:
Accused §..l'lof..;l'e'_-.in of Hunugand as has filed and the same is Heard both the sides.
Perusedllthe material placed on record by the lea.rned_V'co1.ins"ellffor the petitioner and the learned 1 aaaaa ;'At_ thee«.p'o.1Vitvs_et the learned HCGP submits that the petitiosner%acgjc1i:sed is alleged to have committed the offence 'uriderl yariotis provisions of SC and ST (Prevention of C.../Ktroicitties) Act 1989 and therefore by Virtue of section 18 of .»~rW"
the said Act, the present petitioner seeking anticipatory bail 11/3 438 Cr.P.C. can not be entertained. As Sri. R.M.Javed, the learned counsel for the petitiionezfi contends that there is no averm:e'n"ts"in'_ t.he.;«coniplVain't ilfiledi it by; the complainant Nagesh that, Srnt. Kasturibai belong to "that the accused therein insulted by abusing and assaultingéiheriggofi she belongs to SC or ST of this Court in the case' '--.dfneii':.€otiI1ers Vs. Sate by Sub- Inspector Ifctsigal folice Station, reported in 2002(1) iv":-:are.~L.}1:5_1;iI.jVthiea~.;§m;ent petition is 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainableié." ._ O;1"3'«carAefu_l reaidingof the averments of the complaint, it as rightly submitted by the learned cotinsel fofihe petitioner--accused there is no allegation 'therein that the petitionenaccused, being not a member of intentionally abused and assaulted the said r__f"'--...»-
Kasturibai fully knowing that she belongs to SC or ST with intend to lower her reputation. It is held by thisjin the said decision at para Nos. 10 and 11 as under; 4_ Para 10. No doubt, prohibitio1=i~~V-of ps'eek.ing_' V relief of anticipatory bail also-: under Section 18 of thelA__ct,_but whether by mere a1lelgation."and registration of " 1 an offence under ipso facto attracts such prohibiti_o'r1.
Para 1.1. regard following H of various Courts are l"*_necessaiiy..to__ben:looked into. In the case of ThdL'ahi _vil'St'a,t:l_é of Tamil Nadu, (reported in ' i 1998»;i1j)"crimes 310) it is held thus: il"'5'_Provisions of Section 438 of the 'V f'=.C3r.P.C. cannot be said to be applicable in each and every case. Where the allegations do not make out any prima facie offence punishable under any of the provisions of the Act, the bar under Section 18 is inapplicable and the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be availed of".
¢
4. Following the above decision of this court in the said case, I am of the opinion that since there is no allegations in the complaint that the petitior1er--accused iriteiirigyf-igo'naily abused and insulted the elder sister of the knowing that she belongs to SC or"'ST.and to insult her on the ground that
5. Charge sheet has beer: 'S_1'1bInfTJ_L6'd V again;st.i__bQ3th the accused in the said case '{o1'._the"«offences u/secs 323,35{+;,'So6,:§oe sec. 34 IPC and also u/secs.Ii3'{.1g)i(){)i of SC and ST (Prevention of Atijocitiesl' it is clear that the offence ii "pun'i'shable s is added. Whether this petitioner- comrnitting of suicide by the deceased it is a iact to established by the prosecution during the trial iofnthe case.
W
6. Further, averments of the petitioner that, he has been permanently residing at the address shown in th.e'~.p,:e4t_it~ion is not in dispute. Therefore, the appreh.e"nsiion5f prosecution that, he may misusethe.1ibert$7ivii'i'fte.heiiisgrantieds, bail may be met with by imposingiilsguitabile if these circumstance, 1 holdiithgiatbthevh petitio'ne'r;vVdeserves"to grant of anticipatory"gbailp..l'asi..iV,_:prayed.i form. «ii-lence, the following: if V' V if if 'V V, \ The 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioneirilv Crime No.125/2009 of on the file of the learned Pr}. _Di_striet" Sessic_ns"'iJudge, Bagalkot is hereby allowed. ' V' "v..'£fhe---ipe5titio'ner shailsurrender himself to the custody of the AV,.l:V)"_i.strict 8:, Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, and he be .eri'larged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for Rs.50.,Q__iCi30/-- along with one surety for the likesum to the if --..satisfaCtion of the learned Prl. District 8:, Sessions Judge, i ...Eiagalkot, and subject to Conditions that:
r"°-~..('*"\*"'"
a) he shall not directly or indirectly tamper ___with the prosecution evidence nor shall he the prosecution witnesses.
b) he shall attend the Trial» hearing without fail unless llpellfsonavl 'A J is dispensed with folr'v€al~id re.é"1svons._l A copy of the oper'atiVe""po_ftioi1.._of order shall be sent forthwith to the P.S.I., Hungund P.S. for inforf:1at5ioz1_ and compliance.l"""l t i sd/3 JUDGE Vmb