Karnataka High Court
M. Lingaredeppa Gouda S/O Siddanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 22 N D DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.101799/2017
BETWEEN:
1. M.LINGAREDDEPPA GOUDA
S/O.SIDDANAGOUDA
AGE: 68 YEARS .
2. B.SHANKARA GOUDA
S/O.SIDDANAGOUDA
AGE: 65 YEARS .
3. M.CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA
S/O.SIDDANAGOUDA
AGE: 62 YEARS .
4. M.SHARANA BASAVANAGOUDA
S/O.SIDDANAGOUDA
AGE: 55 YEARS .
ALL ARE AGRICU LTURIS TS,
R/O.HA TCHOLLI VILLAGE,
TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIS T: BALLARI.
...PETITIONERS .
(BY SRI J.BASAVA RAJ, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
(THROUGH HATCH OLLI P.S .)
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECU TOR,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH A T DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT.
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER.)
THIS CRIM INAL PETITION IS F ILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPA TORY BA IL TO
THE PETITIONER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR A RRES T IN CRIME NO.29/2017 REGIS TERED IN
HATCHOLLI POLICE STA TION, SIRU GUPPA TALUK, BA LLARI
DISTRICT, REG IS TERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISH ABLE
UNDER SECTION 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 3(1)(X) OF SC/S T (P.A.) ACT, 1989, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioners- accused No.1 to 4, under section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant them anticipatory bail directing the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Hatcholli P.S. Crime No.29/2017, registered for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3 under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The complainant Timmaiah alleged in the complaint that the Government of Karnataka has re-granted the land bearing Sy.No.332 measuring 8.17 acres to Padlappa and Dharmanna and they have given occupancy rights by order dated 2.4.1991. The said land fell to the share of the complainant and others and same has been mutated to their names on 6.7.1995. Since they are in possession of the said land and their names reflected in the record of rights, the complainant has also availed the crop loan from the bank; complainant and other farmers have availed loan for the sake of lift irrigation. The further allegation that in order to grab the said land, the petitioner No.1 by fabricating the agreement of sale has instituted a suit in O.S.No.173/2015 against the complainant and other family members before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Siruguppa. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant 4 ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner No.1 and the said suit is still pending. The complainant has challenged the said order in M.A.No.11/2016 before the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Siruguppa and the Court set aside the order of injunction by order dated 16.7.2016. Further the allegation that on 28.6.2017 at 7.00 p.m. all petitioners came near the house of complainant and asked them to come out of the house, thereafter the petitioner No.2 Shankaragouda threatened them and abused by taking their caste name. The petitioner No.1 asked the complainant to get registered the said land into their names otherwise he would be given away the life. On the basis of said complaint a crime came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 5
4. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the other materials produced in the case. Looking to the complaint averments itself, it goes to show that the petitioner No.1 herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.173/2015 against the complainant and other family members for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the complainant and others and the averments further goes to show that firstly there was an order in favour of the petitioner No.1 but when it was challenged before the appellate Court, the same was set aside. But one thing is clear, before registration of the complaint, such a suit was filed by the petitioner No.1. The further allegation goes to show that on 28.6.2017 all the petitioners rushed to the house of the complainant abused them in filthy language and also taking the name of their caste, thereby they have committed the alleged offences. Since the petition is under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and one of the alleged offence is under the provisions of 6 SC/ST (P.A.) Act, in view of Section 18 of the said Act, the Court has to consider whether really the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act has been made out by the prosecution.
5. At this stage looking to the materials that because of the pendency of the civil suit in respect of the agreement of sale, the complainant and family members filing such complaint against the petitioners cannot be completely ruled out. Apart from that the dispute was in respect of the landed property. Therefore the question of petitioners committing the offence alleged under the provisions of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act will not arise and even looking to the allegations made in the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that those allegations will not constitute the offence under the said provisions. Therefore section 18 of the Act is not a bar for maintaining the petition for anticipatory bail. Even looking to the other alleged offences, it is only under Section 506 read with section 34 of IPC. 7 The materials also goes to show that even specifically as the accused No.3 was assaulted by the complainant and others, a criminal case in Crime No.30/2017 also came to be registered as against the complainant and others. The petitioners contended that there is a false implication. They are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court.
6. Hence the petition is allowed. The respondent police are hereby directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the said offence in Hatcholli P.S. Crime No.29/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- each 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.8
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 Mrk/-