Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mallikarjun Sutturmath vs State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101540 OF 2017.
BETWEEN:
SRI. MALLIKARJUN SUTTURMATH
S/O SANGABASAYYA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: PVT. JOB,
R/O: BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D. M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
RPTD BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR-HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ISSUE A
DIRECTION TO THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF SUB-URBAN
POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, TALUK HUBBALLI, DISTRICT
DHARWAD THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE APPLICANT BEING
ARRESTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.164 OF 2007 IN SPL. SC/ST NO. 18
OF 2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
198, 199, 200, 420 OF IPC AND 3(1)(ix) OF SC/ST ACT, HE BE
RELEASED ON BAIL ON ANY CONDITIONS THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT BE PLEASED TO IMPOSE ON THE PETITIONER.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 198, 199, 200 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.164/2007 and now pending in Spl.Case SC/ST No.18/2017 before the II-Additional District Judge at Dharwad.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, that though the petitioner herein does not belongs to Beda-Jangam community. But when obtaining the job in the KSRTC, he has falsely mentioned his caste as Beda-Jangam and obtains the certificate to that effect from the Tahasildar and thereby he secured the :3: job. Therefore it is the contention of the prosecution that by obtaining such certificate he has cheated the Government and also deprived the candidate who really belongs to Beda-Jangam Community to get that opportunity. Hence on these grounds the prosecution proceeded as against the present petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered in the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the decision of the District Caste Verification Committee has been challenged by the petitioner, before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the case for a default. When he challenged the initiation of the proceedings before this Court, firstly this Court observed in the writ proceedings, that he has to approach the proper forum and he cannot :4: maintain the writ petition. As observed by this Court in its order dated 04th day of August 2003 in Writ Petition No.30897/2003(GM-CC). After the disposal of the said writ petitions the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, M.S.Building at Bangalore. But as the petitioner herein has not appeared before the said authority same came to be dismissed. By challenging the said order again he preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.No.15631/2016(GM-CC) and the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 07th day of April 2016 and same is ordered to restore the said proceedings and hear it on merits and to dispose of the same. Learned counsel further made the submission that the said proceedings are still pending, but here on the basis of the complaint on the proceedings initiated the District Court has already issued the warrant as against the present petitioner. Hence, counsel submitted to allow the petition and grant the anticipatory bail as prayed for. :5:
5. Per contra the learned HCGP opposed the petition on the ground that as the alleged offences are also under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and in view of Section 18 of the said ACT the petitioner cannot maintain the petition seeking the anticipatory bail. He also submitted that there is a prima facie material to show that though the present petitioner does not belongs to Beda-Jangam community, but by furnishing wrong information he obtained the false caste certificate and thereby committed the fraud and cheated the Government. Hence, he submitted to reject the bail petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the documents produced by the petitioner along with the petition, so also I have perused the orders passed by this Court in the above said two writ proceedings, so also the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioner. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution in the writ proceedings by order dated 07th day of April :6: 2016 this Court set-aside the order of dismissal and directed the Authorities to restore the appeal and dispose of the same on merits and the said proceedings are still pending and not disposed of. When the proceedings are still pending, unless and until it is decided and decision is taken, that the petitioner has committed the such offences, at this stage it cannot be concluded that the present petitioner committed the alleged offences. Even though the alleged offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, but when it is under challenge and the proceedings are pending, it cannot be said that there is bar to entertain the petition. Hence, perusing the documents produced by the petitioner, petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.164/2007 for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
:7:
i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and furnish for surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the I.O. for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioner has to appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from the
date of this order and to execute the
personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHR/-