Karnataka High Court
A N Gokul vs State Of Karnataka By Masthi Ps on 24 September, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1600 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. A.N.Gokul
S/o Nagarajappa
Aged about 22 years
Occ: Agriculturist.
2. Nagarathnamma
W/o Nagarajappa
Aged about 40 years
Occ: Agriculturist.
3. Govardhana
S/o Nagarajappa
Aged about 19 years
Occ: Agriculturist.
4. Anjaneyappa
S/o. China Appayappa
Aged about 33 years
Occ: Agriculturist.
5. China Appayappa
S/o Late Pappanna
Aged about 61 years.
Occ: Agriculturist.
-2-
6. Muniyamma
W/o. Muniyappa
Aged about 65 years
Occ: Agriculturist.
7. P.Muniyappa
S/o Pappanna
Aged about 67 years
Occ: Agriculturist.
All the petitioners are
Residing at Allahalli Village
Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk
Kolar District - 563 101.
...Petitioners
(By Sri.S. Shankarappa, Advocate - Through V.C)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by Masthi P.S.,
Represented by HCGP
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Muniraja
Aged about 35 years
S/o Banahallappa
R/at Allahalli village
Masthi Hobli
Malur Taluk
Kolar District - 563 101
...Respondents
(By Sri H.R. Showri, HCGP for R1;
Sri C. Vijayakumar, Advcoate for R2-
no representation)
-3-
This Criminal Petition is filed under 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.74/2019 registered by
Masti Police Station, Kolar for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 324, 355, 504 and 506 read
with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(b)
of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 8 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in relation to Crime No.74/2019 of Masthi Police Station, pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge at Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' and "the Act" respectively).
-4-
2. I have heard Sri. Rakshith R., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. S. Shankarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, virtually and Sri. H.R. Showri, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - State. Sri. C. Vijaykumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent, though he has filed his objections to the main petition.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 08.09.2019, at about 3.00 p.m., all the petitioners by constituting an unlawful assembly and by holding deadly weapons like club and other articles, trespassed into the land bearing Sy.No.67/P8, where the complainant and other persons were there. When the complainant questioned the petitioners about trespassing into the said land, all the petitioners assaulted the complainant and abused by taking the name of the caste and abused in filthy language and -5- also threatened with dire consequences. Based on the above information, a complaint came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that already charge sheet has been filed and a perusal of the complaint if indicates that it has been filed with legal mind and by application of legal mentality. It is further submitted that earlier when a complaint has been filed before the police, the same has not been registered and subsequently, when the complaint has been sent by post, the same has been registered. It is his further submission that prima facie, there is no material as against the petitioner-accused for having abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste. It is his further submission that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act says that the said act of the accused must constitute an offence in the public view. No such other persons were there at the place of incident except the accused persons. In that light it -6- does not constitute an offence as alleged. The petitioners are ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and also ready to offer sureties. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has vehemently argued and submitted that already charge sheet has been filed and there are three eye witnesses to the incident. There is prima facie material to show that the petitioners-accused have abused the complainant and his family members by taking the name of the Caste. It is his further submission hat in view of the bar created under Section 18 and 18(A) of the Act, that the Court cannot grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners- accused. On these grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the records.
-7-
7. It is trite law that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in the case under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2020 SCC (6) 454. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRATHVIRAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED in 2020 (4) SCC 727, has also reiterated that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Sections 18 and 18(A) (i) shall not apply.
8. A perusal of the contents of the complaint in detail, it indicates that there is prima facie material as against petitioner No.1-accused No.2, petitioner No.4- -8- accused No.5 and petitioner No.5-accused No.6 for having abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste. Insofar as accused Nos.3, 4, 7 and 8 are concerned, the only allegation is that they have assaulted the complainant by abusing. Taking into consideration, the above said proposition of law, I am of the considered opinion that there is prima facie material as against petitioner No.1-accused No.2, petitioner No.4-accused No.5 and petitioner No.5-accused No.6 and in that light and also in view of the bar created under Section 18 and 18(A) of the act, they are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail and the petition as against them is liable to be dismissed. Insofar as petitioner No.2-accused No.3, petitioner No.3- accused No.4, petitioner No.6-accused No.7 and petitioner No.7-accused No.8 is concerned, the only allegation made out is that they have assaulted and abused by taking vulgar words. Whether it constitutes offence under Section 3 of the Act or not has to be -9- determined during trial. While considering the bail application, this Court cannot hold a mini-trial. In that light, petitioner No.2-accused No.3, petitioner No.3- accused No.4, petitioner No.6-accused No.7 and petitioner No.7-accused No.8 are ordered to be released on bail and the petition as against them is liable to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The petition insofar as it relates to petitioner No.1- accused No.2, petitioner No.4-accused No.5 and petitioner No.5-accused No.6 is dismissed.
The petition insofar as it relates to petitioner No.2- accused No.3, petitioner No.3-accused No.4, petitioner No.6-accused No.7 and petitioner No.7-accused No.8 is allowed and they are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in relation to Crime No.74/2019 of Masthi Police Station, pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge at Kolar for the offences
- 10 -
punishable under Sections 324, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner No.2-accused No.3, petitioner No.3-accused No.4, petitioner No.6-
accused No.7 and petitioner No.7-
accused No.8 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii. They shall surrender before the Investigating officer within 20 days from today, failing which, this order automatically stands cancelled.
iii. They shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence directly or
indirectly.
- 11 -
iv. They shall be regular in attending the
trial and if they fail to attend the trial regularly without excusable grounds, the bail granted is liable to be cancelled.
v. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
vi. They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities and they shall not threaten the witnesses.
vii. Violation of any of the above conditions leads to cancellation of bail granted.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc