Karnataka High Court
Shreeshail Pattanashetti S/O. Parappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739
CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W
CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100294 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100317 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100294 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHREESHAIL PATTANASHETTI S/O. PARAPPA
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
R/AT NANDI LAYOUT, HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL HANGAL POLICE STATION,
DANDAGAL Date:
2023.07.27
11:03:22 -
HAVERI DISTRICT-581110
0700
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
2. SHIVAKUMARA GUTTEPPA TALAVAR,
S/O. GUTTEPPA
AGED 28 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF MALAGUNDA,
HANGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581110
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739
CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W
CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST
ACT, SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO APPELLANT
PETITIONER IN CR.NO 234/2022 REGISTERED BY THE HANGAL
POLICE STATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/SEC.
323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC R/W SCHEDULE CASTE AND THE
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT
BILL, 2015, U/SEC. 3(1)(s) AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
07.01.2023 IN CRIMINAL MISC NO. 947/2022.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100317 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O NINGAPPA BOMMANAHALLI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. P.C. HANAGAL PS,
RO. POLICE QUARTERS, HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
2. IRANNA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA HONNALLI
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. POLICE CONSTABLE,
HANAGAL PS,
R/O. TARALABALU NAGAR, II-CROSS, HAVERI,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
3. NINGAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA KANAVALLI
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. ASI HANAGAL PS,
R/O. ASHWINI NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, HAVERI,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. M. GUNDAWADE , ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-580011
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739
CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W
CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023
THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION
2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. GUTTEPPA TALAVAR
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE,
R/O. MALAGUND, TQ. HANAGAL,
DIST. HAVERI.-580011
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST
ACT, SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER AND ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL AND PASS AN ORDER TO ENLARGE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
NO.2 TO 4 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL, HANAGAL P.S. CR.NO.
234/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI, FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES U/SEC. 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(s)
OF SC/ST (PA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused No.1 filed Crl.A.No.100294/2023 and appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4 filed Crl.A.No.100317/2023 feeling aggrieved by order passed by the trial Court on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Crl.Misc.No.947/2022, dated 7.1.2023.
2. Heard the arguments of both sides.
3. Learned counsel for appellants in both the cases filed application to condone delay in filing the appeal under -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 I.A.No.1/2023. The trial Court has passed order on 7.1.2023. In terms of Section 14-A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, appeal has to be filed within 90 days. However, appeal can be filed within a period of 90 days after the expiry of first period of 90 days, thus totally within the period of 180 days appeal has to be filed. In view of reasons stated in the affidavit in both the appeals and being satisfied with grounds, further the appeals are filed within a period of 180 days, delay in both the appeals is ordered to be condoned.
4. On perusal of the complaint allegation, it would go to show that complainant/Shivakumar Guteppa Talwar practicing advocate went to Hangal police station to enquire about incident that occurred on 26.12.2022 and questioned as to why no any action was taken in the said case. The PSI of the said police station and staff, who are appellant in both the appeals are alleged to have abused complainant in filthy language and PSI has fisted on the face of complainant, further he was driven out of the police station. Thereafter, he was further assaulted by police staff. It is further alleged that all accused named in the FIR have abused complainant in -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 filthy language by taking his caste with an intention to humiliate him. On these allegations made in the complaint, case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short the Act).
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail application on the premises that there is bar in terms of Section 18 of the Act and there are sufficient material evidence on record to substantiate allegations made against the accused. The appellants have misused their post and assaulted on the complainant causing him injury. The counsel representing respondent No.2 also opposed bail applications on the same ground.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prathiv Raj Chuhan V/s. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, wherein it has been observed and held that:
"Where prima facie case not made out, anticipatory bail can be granted in appropriate circumstance with cautious exercise of power under Section 18 and 18 A of 1989 Act have -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 no application where prima facie case is not made out. However for evaluating prima facie case, re-appreciation of evidence is not required."
The co-ordinate Bench of this Court by referring the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in SUBBANNA @ SUBRAMANI M. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE BY THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND ANOTHER, reported in ILR 2021 KAR 515 has held that in a given case where the complainant does not make out a prima-facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act, a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be entertained. However, it depends on the facts of each case. In view of principles enunciated in the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court, it is evident that bar will come into operation only when Court records prima facie finding that there was humiliation of person belongs to schedule caste and schedule tribe with an intention to humiliate in public view.
7. It is useful to refer the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Shailesh kumar V/s. State of Karnataka, -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 reported in 2023 live law (Kar) 31, wherein by referring the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Varam V/s. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and another Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Loknath V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC online (Kar) 14896, it has been observed and held that the offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that informant is a member of schedule caste, unless there is intention to humiliate the member of schedule caste or schedule tribe for the reason that victim belongs to such caste.
8. In the present case, incident alleged to have taken place in Hangal police station and also in front of Hangal police station. The genesis of incident is on account of complainant questioning PSI of Hangal police station for not investigating the case with respect to incident that occurred on 26.12.2022 on the complaint filed by Manjunath Barke. The records produced by learned counsel for appellants would go to show that case is registered in Crime No.234/2022. In turn PSI has also filed complaint against respondent No.2, which has been registered in Hangal police station No.235/2022 on the -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 allegations of causing obstruction for lawful discharge of duties. All these proceedings in triangle took place for not investigating the complaint of Manjunath Barke, the other two cases referred above are out come of such incident. Therefore, under these circumstances, bar contemplated under Section 18 of the Act will not come in the way for deciding anticipatory bail application of the appellants.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that there is no reasonable apprehension of appellants being arrested, since that is basic requirement for considering anticipatory bail application in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for appellants filed memo and produced copy of charge sheet with order sheet of the trial Court. Wherein it would go to show that investigation in Crime No.234/2022 is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. The certified copy of order sheet of the trial Court would go to show that trial Court after taking cognizance of offence has ordered to issue NBW against accused Nos. 1 to 4 even without issuing summons to them. Therefore, contention of learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 No.2 that they were not arrested during investigation and even after rejection of anticipatory bail also they have not been arrested, therefore, there is no reasonable apprehension of appellants being arrested cannot be legally sustained. The issuance of NBW against accused Nos.1 to 4 is sufficient to have an apprehension of being arrested in this case.
10. Looking to the complaint allegations and wound certificate of complainant, it would go to show that complainant has suffered tenderness over his left shoulder and the said injury is opinioned to be simple in nature. However, no any injury was found on the face of complainant as alleged in the complaint. Indisputably, investigation has been already completed and charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, there is no question of tampering the prosecution witnesses and apprehension of learned High Court Government Pleader can be met by imposing appropriate conditions. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 ORDER Appeals filed by appellant/accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.100294/2023 and appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crl.A.No.100317/2023 are hereby allowed.
The impugned order passed by the trial Court on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in Crl.Misc.No.947/2022, dated 7.1.2023 is hereby set aside.
The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.234/2022 of Hangal police station, subject to following conditions:
i) Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be released on bail on they executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for likesum amount.
ii) Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing unless otherwise they are exempted for valid reason.
iii) Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 shall produce address proof document of themselves and that of their sureties.
iv) Appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 shall not tamper prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7739 CRL.A No. 100294 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100317 of 2023 The observations made in these appeals are only for the purpose of disposal of these appeals.
(Sd/-) JUDGE vb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14