Karnataka High Court
Kantheppa S/O Sangappa Hesarur vs The State Of Karnataka, on 29 May, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100825/2017
BETWEEN:
1. KANTHEPPA S/O SANGAPPA HESARUR
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. HANUMANT S/O SANGAPPA HESARUR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. GYANAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA BHANGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. AMARESH S/O SHARANAPPA BHANGI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. MALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA TONDIHAL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF HIRESHINGANAGUTTI,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH P S I
:2:
ILAKAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO PETITIONERS BE ENLARGE
ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN ILKAL RURAL P.S.CRIME NO.19
OF 2017 PENDIGN ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 323, 354, 504,
506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(s)
AND 3(2)(va) OF SC AND ST (P.O.A.) ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (s) and 3(2) (va) of Schedule Caste and :3: Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.19/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Muttappa Durgappa Bhajantri lodged the complaint on 22.02.2017 before the Ilkal Police Station making the allegation that on 21.02.2017 at 7.00 p.m. villagers i.e. Kantheppa Hesarur, Hanamant Hesarur, Dyamappa Bhangi, Amaresh Bhangi and Mallappa Tondihal assaulted to his younger brother Hanamant Durgappa Bhajantri by tying him to an electric pole situated near the entrance of the village on the ground of false allegations and also abused him by taking the name of his caste. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. :4:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the submission that there is a counter complaint filed as against the complainant and his brother which was registered in Ilkal Rural Police Station Crime No.18/2017. Therefore, because of that reason on the same day as a counterblast the case has been filed against the petitioners herein. Hence, he submitted that there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution for committing the said offences by the petitioners. Even with regard to Section 18 of the SC-ST (PA) Act learned counsel made the submission that there is no absolute bar as such, but Court has to examine and to see that looking to the allegations made in the complaint whether those allegations really constitute the offence under the provisions of the SC-ST (PA) Act. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to grant the anticipatory bail.
:5:
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the materials placed by the prosecution, there is a prima facie case made out by the prosecution about involvement of the petitioners in committing the alleged offences. He also submitted that Section 18 is the bar to entertain the petition seeking anticipatory bail. Even he referred to the injury certificates of two injured persons and submitted that this itself makes out a case as against the present petitioners. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition. Since the petition is under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Court has to first examine whether the allegations in the complaint constituting the offences under the provisions of the SC-ST (PA) Act in view of Section 18 of the said Act. There are totally five petitioners who filed this petition, looking to the :6: complaint averments there are no specific allegations as to which of the particular petitioner used the abusive words taking name of the caste. The bald and vague allegations have been made in the complaint that the petitioners abused the complainant and his brother taking the name of the caste. Only on the allegations it cannot be said that prima facie the prosecution placed the material to show that the allegations in the complaint are constituting the offences under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that Section 18 of the said Act cannot be a bar to entertain the petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. So far as other merits of the case is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even there is a case registered against the complainant and others in Crime No.18/2017. Therefore, this itself goes to show that there are case and counter case. The injuries are mentioned simple in nature. The alleged offences are :7: not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.19/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for. iv. Petitioners have 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 CLK