Karnataka High Court
Manjunath H vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039
CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.442/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.GIRISHA B.P.
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430
2. SRI.B.P.GANGADAHAR
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Digitally signed by
RUPA V R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
Location: High MALAVALLI TALUK
Court of MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430
Karnataka ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SUNIL RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.T.SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
HALAGURU POLICE STATION
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571430
REP. BY SPP
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039
CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU
2. KIRAN.G.
S/O GANGADHAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT -571 430
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1
R2- SERVED)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 14(A)(2)OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ONE PASSED BY THE V
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.49/2024 ON 06.02.2024 ON THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS ON
CR.NO.10/2024, ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1/P.S.
(HALAGUR P.S) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
506,341,504,355,143,149,323,324,327 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1,r)3(1,d),3(1,e),3(1,s) AND 3(2,va) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.407/2024
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH H.,
S/O HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT HADLI VILALGE
KASABA HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK
PIN -571 430
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA. H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039
CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
HALAGUR POLICE STATION
MANDYA
REP. BY THEIR SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU -560 001
2. KIRAN G.
S/O GANGADHAR, MAJOR
R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 430
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT
R2- SERVED)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRIME
NO.10/2024 DATED 12.02.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA
AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.10/2024
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 506, 341, 504, 355, 143, 149, 323,
324, 327, 307 OF IPC AND SEC., 3(1)(r), 3(1) (d), 3(1)(e),
3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) OF SC/ST (POA) OF THE RESPONDENT
HALAGUR POLICE, BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MANDYA.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE JUDGMENT : 18.03.2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT : 05.04.2024
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039
CRL.A No. 442 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Crl.A.No.442/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.A.No.407/2024 is preferred by accused No.7.
2. A case in Cr.No.10/2024 is registered at Halagur Police Station, Mandya, against accused Nos.1 to 5 and others for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act') and Section 506, 341, 504, 355, 143, 149, 323, 324 and 327 of IPC, on a complaint lodged by one Kiran G S/o Gangadhar.
3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.
4. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 06.02.2024 and 13.02.2024 rejected both the petitions, which are assailed in these appeals.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
5. It is alleged in the complaint that on 06.01.2024 at about 7.30 pm, when the complainant/victim was proceeding on a motorcycle along with his friend Shivakumar, accused Nos.1 to 5 named in the FIR and others came in a Santro Car in a high speed and waylaid their motorcycle and dragged the complainant by his neck, abused him in filthy language using vulgar words referring to his caste and tried to assault him with club and rods. When the complainant started running, they chased him, tore his cloths and assaulted with clubs, rod and stones, kicked him and also snatched his gold chain weighing 20 gms. and Rs.50,000/- from his pocket. Further, they made him to walk for about a kilometer in his underwear and insulted him in public view, urinated on him, slapped him etc. One Ranjith of Hadly village, Chikkaswamy of Huskuru village and Shivakumar rescued him. Thereafter, the accused persons went away threatening him with dire consequences saying that he will be slaughtered if complaint is lodged against them. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No.442/2024 that the complainant has lodged a false complaint implicating the appellants after an inordinate delay. The complaint is politically motivated, which is filed to wreck vengeance against the appellants. Omnibus allegations are made, which does not attract the ingredients of the offences alleged to have been committed under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Accused No.1 is an elected representative from Halasahalli Gram Panchayat and currently serving as a member of the said gram panchayat. Accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.1, he is suffering from tuberculosis and currently undergoing treatment for the past three months. It is contended that the complainant is a rowdy sheeter having several cases registered against him.
7. It is further contended that if any such incident as alleged had taken place, the visuals would have been captured in the CCTV camera, as the incident is alleged to have taken place in front of one YCS Bar. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
8. The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.407/2024 has contended that name of the said accused is not spelt in the FIR, he is innocent and as an after thought he has been named as an accused. He contended that he has been arrested and interrogated and his further detention is not required.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the prayer for bail, contending that the allegations are serious and it is specifically stated that the accused persons have not only abused and assaulted the complainant who belong to scheduled caste, but also paraded him in his underwear in public view, assaulted him with clubs, chappals, stones etc., and also urinated on him. He contended that the complainant has taken treatment for the injuries sustained by him and he has explained the delay in lodging the complaint. He contended that in view of a prima facie case against the appellants for having committed offences under the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024 provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.
10. The learned High Court Government Pleader has further contended that as per the investigation, even accused No.7 has participated in the commission of the offence and he is also a member of unlawful assembly, hence, in view of the serious nature of offence committed, he is not entitled for the relief he has sought.
11. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 6.1.2024 at about 7.30 pm. In the complaint, it is stated that one Ranjit S/o Krishnappa, Chikkaswamy S/o Hombalaiah and Shivakumar S/o Doddasiddaiah rescued the complainant. He was then admitted at Halaguru Hospital, wherein he was given first aid treatment. It is stated that as he was ashamed of the incident and due to the life threat given to him, he went to Kanakapura, to the house of his wife and took treatment in the Government Hospital. Thereafter, he took treatment in a private Hospital for about 4 days as an in-patient. He was told by -9- NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024 the panchayatdars not to lodge any complaint, but the accused persons continued to abuse him stating that he belong to Scheduled caste and he cannot do anything and started threatening him with dire consequences.
12. Serious allegations are made in the complaint, not only that the complainant was abused in filthy language with reference to his caste, assaulted with club, rod, stones and kicked etc., but also that the accused urinated on him and paraded him in his underwear. The contention that the allegations are false etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. The delay in lodging the complaint has been explained. Merely because there is delay in lodging the complaint is not a ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution. The incident has been narrated by the eye witnesses namely Shivakumar and Ranjitkumar. There are prima facie materials available on record against accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the name of accused No.7 is not in the FIR. Further, neither the complainant nor the witnesses have referred to his name in their statements.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
13. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer of accused Nos.1 and 2 for anticipatory bail has observed that the averments in the complaint shows inhuman attitude on the part of the accused. The names of some of the witnesses who rescued the complainant also found in the FIR and regarding the treatment that he has taken, hospital extract of accident register is filed, the name of assailants and weapon is also mentioned and therefore, there is a prima facie case made out by the prosecution. The complaint averments clearly indicate that, there is clear caste based attack on the complainant, hence, bar contained under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is clearly applicable. Further, observed that prima facie genuine reason is found for the delay in the complaint and no suspicion can be raised taking the delay into consideration. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge are based on the material collected by the prosecution.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024
14. Insofar as accused No.7 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration that the name of the said accused is neither spelt in the FIR nor stated by the witnesses. No valid reasons are assigned to reject his bail application. The said accused is already arrested and interrogated. He can be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions. Hence, the impugned order insofar as rejecting the application filed by accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. Crl.A.No.442/2024 preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.
ii. Crl.A.No.407/2024 preferred by accused No.7 is allowed.
iii. The order dated 13.2.2024 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Cr.No.10/2024 is set aside.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14039 CRL.A No. 442 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 407 of 2024 iv. Appellant/accused No.7 in Cr.No.10/2024 of Halagur Police Station, Mandya, is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:
1. Accused No.7 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court, if there is any change in address.
3. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
4. He shall not indulge himself in committing any offence.
5. He shall appear before the Trial Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1