Sathisha vs State By Rural Police on 6 September, 2012

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sathisha vs State By Rural Police on 6 September, 2012

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                        1
                              CRL.P. No. 5310/2012


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

 DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012

                    BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

           CRL.P. NO. 5310 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SATHISHA
S/O LATE KEMOPANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT MALLURU VILLAGE
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105
                                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRIA.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADV.,)

AND:

STATE BY RURAL POLICE
SIDLAGHATTA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
                           ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B. SATISH R GIRJI, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF   CR.P.C.   PRAYING  TO   ENLARGE   THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST     IN    CR.NO.171/2012   PLAINTIFF
SIDLAGHATTA      RURAL    POLICE    STAION,
CHICKBALLAPURA, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR
                           2
                                  CRL.P. No. 5310/2012

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341,
355, 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND 3(I) (x) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 1989.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

One M. Munikrishnappa, S/o Munishamappa lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 03.08.2012 interaila alleging that the petitioner abused him by naming his caste, assaulted with sandal and spit on his face and intentionally insulted him in a public place. The jurisdictional polcie registered a case against the petitioner in Crime nO. 171/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 355, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3(i) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The matter is under investigation. The petition filed by the petitioner under section 438 in crl. Misc. Petition. No. 477/2012 came to be dismissed by Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.08.2012 mainly on the ground that investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.

CRL.P. No. 5310/2012

2. Learned Government Pleader contends that under Section 18 of the SC/St (POA) Act, there is a bar to entertain the petiton under Section 438 of CR.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a Division Bench of this court in the case of M.N. Bungara koppa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3308 held that under certain circumstances, this court can enlarge the petitioner on bail under section 438 Cr.P.C and the same reads as under:

" Section 438 of the Code of criminal Procedure in cases where the provisions of the Atrocities Act have been attracted, our answer is in the negative. WE have already clarified that it is not merely the invocation of the provisions that is the test but that it is necessary for the Court to embark upon a degree of scrutiny and we can only draw a parallel from the action 4 CRL.P. No. 5310/2012 under the Companies Act where the Supreme Court uses the phrase ' lifting the vail of the company' or in the other words the examination which the Court would have to do is to ascertain what is the true nature of the complexion and contents of the charge, not merely going by empty word, or sections,. While we do concede that the bar would apply as consistently laid down by the Supreme Court and various other High courts in genuine cases which fall under Section 3 of the Act, it would certainly not apply to situations in which the provision of the Act have wrongly been invoked or where the facts do not justify it.

4. The Division Bench of this court by relying on a judgment of Supreme court in AIR 1993 SC 1208 held that there is no total bar to entertain an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. where the provisions of Atrocities Act have been attracted. Therefore, I hold in view of the dictum of this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this 5 CRL.P. No. 5310/2012 court is competent to entertain an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

5. Admittedly, the incident had taken place on 23.07.2012 and the complaint was lodged on 03.08.2012. There is a delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint. There is no explanation whatsoever in the complaint for this delay. Secondly, it is seen that the real controversy between the parties is with regard to right of way and not a castist attack. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this petition.

6. For the reasons stated above, the following order:

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) In the event of respondent-police arresting the petitioner, he shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 6 CRL.P. No. 5310/2012 only) to the satisfaction of the Respondent-police authority.

(iii) Whenever, the Investigating Officer calls upon, petitioner shall keep present and co-operate for the completion of the investigation.

(iv) In no manner the petitioner shall hamper or temper the prosecution witnesses.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court