Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagadish Jannu vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3876/2020
BETWEEN :
1. Sri Jagadish Jannu
S/o Panduranga
Aged about 26 years
W/at KEB, Terekananbi Branch
Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagar District-571 111.
2. Sri Parasappa Bisanala
S/o Subbanna
Aged about 23 years
W/at KEB, Hanagala Branch
Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagar District-571 111.
3. Sri Sangamesh Meti S/o Adiveppa
Aged about 23 years
W/at KEB, Gundlupet Branch
Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagar District-571 111.
4. Sri Rajashekar
S/o late Govindashetty
Aged about 29 years
W/at KEB, Gundlupet Branch
Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagar District-571 111.
-2-
5. Sri Sharanabasappa
S/o Chinnapur
Aged about 34 years
W/at KEB, Begur Branch
Gundlupet Taluk
Chamarajanagar District-571 111.
... Petitioners
(By Sri K.G.Sadashivaiah, Advocate)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka
by Gundlupet Police Station
Chamarajanagar District
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Sri B.Ravi Kumar
S/o Chikkamadaiah
Aged about 46 years
R/at Ward No.20,
Ambedkar Circle, Gundlupet Town
Chamarajanagar-571 111.
... Respondents
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP for R1;
Sri H.M.Manjesh, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.257/2020 of Gundlupete
Police Station, Chamarajanagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 and 114
r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w)(1) and 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
-3-
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders
'through video conference' this day, the Court made
the following:-
ORDER
The present petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.257/2020 of Gundlupete Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST Act' for short).
2. I have heard Sri Sadashivaiah K.G., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.M.Manjesh, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 virtually and Sri Divakar Maddur, learned HCGP for respondent No.1- State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 are the employees of Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB), Gundlupete. Accused -4- No.5-petitioner No.5 herein contested the election to the post of Member to represent Central Office of KEB. The election was conducted and accused No.5 was got elected to the said post, whereas the complainant defeated in the said election. It is further alleged that on 1.8.2020 at about 6.30 p.m. one Mr.Abhishek uploaded in social media by tweeting in favour of the complainant and thereafter galata took place and the accused persons started abusing and assaulting the said Abhishek. In the meanwhile the complainant also came to rescue Abhishek and at that time, accused persons 1 to 4 abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of his caste. When the wife of Venkatesh came there to rescue, the accused pulled her and they have also snatched 50 grams of her mangalya chain and accused Nos.3 and 4 have tried to assault with iron rod and abused by taking the name of caste and told that they have to be finished. Subsequently Abhishek, Dinesh M.C., -5- Santhosh H.b., Lakshman C.K., pacified the quarrel. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 that accused No.5 and the complainant contested in the election in question and the complainant lost the election. There was some galata in this behalf. It is his further submission that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 are the employees of KEB and they have not committed any offence. It is his further submission that accused No.5 was not present at the time of alleged incident, but the complaint shows that at the instigation of accused No.5 the other accused persons committed the alleged offence that itself falsifies the case of the complainant. It is his further submission that the alleged incident has taken place at about 6.30 p.m. and no public were present at the time of the alleged incident. It is his further submission that the brother of the complainant was working as ASI in the said Police Station and at it his instance, the present -6- complaint has been registered. It is his further submission that no independent complaint has been filed by the wife of Venkatesh for alleging snatching of mangalya chain that itself creates a doubt about the alleged incident. It his further submission that as to who are the persons who exactly abused by taking the name of the caste is not stated in the complaint. Petitioners are class-4 employees in KEB and no prima facie case has been made out as against them. It is his further submission that if complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of SC/ST Act, then under such circumstances, the bar created under Sections 18 and 18A will not apply and this Court can exercise its inherent power and release the petitioners no bail. The petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. -7-
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has vehemently argued and submitted that there is a clear bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act that if there is a prima facie material as against the accused persons, this Court cannot grant bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint clearly go to show that the petitioners have abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste and in that light, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that the accused persons have abused the complainant by taking the name of caste and have also tried to assault with iron rod. They have also snatched mangalya chain of the wife of Venkatesh. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant by supporting the arguments of the learned HCGP submitted that the alleged incident has taken place in a public place, that too when the -8- employees have left the office. It is his further submission that the complaint has been tampered by the petitioners that itself shows that the petitioners are very high handed people and if they are released on anticipatory bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is his further submission that there is a bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in 2020 SCC Online 159, wherein it has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the contents of -9- the complaint do not make out any prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, bar created under Sections 18 and 18A shall not apply. At paragraphs-10 and 11, it has been observed as under:-
"10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.
11. The court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised."
- 10 -
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and on perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is not in dispute that there was an election to the KEB on 29.7.2020 and in the said election, accused No.5-petitioner No.5 herein was got elected whereas the complainant has lost. Even one Mr.Abhishek also tweeted in social media by supporting the complainant. Because of the said act of Abhishek there was some galata on 1.8.2020 at about 6.30 p.m. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, there is some material as against accused Nos.1 and 2-petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein for having abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste.
10. In so far as second part of the complaint is concerned, it is alleged that the accused persons have snatched the mangalya chain of the wife of Venkatesh and thereafter accused Nos.3 and 4 came holding iron rod and they abused by saying that they belong to lower caste and they have also assaulted the complainant.
- 11 -
Accused No.5 was not present when the alleged incident has taken place.
11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is prima facie material as against accused Nos.1 and 2-petitioners 1 and 2 herein and there is no specific allegation made in the complaint as against accused Nos.3 to 5-petitioner Nos.3 to 5. In that light, petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2-petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act. In so far as the petition filed by accused Nos.3 to 5-petitioner Nos.3 to 5 is concerned, there is no prima facie material and as held in the decision quoted supra, this Court can exercise inherent power and grant them anticipatory bail.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
- 12 -
Petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2-petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.
Petition filed by accused Nos.3 to 5-petitioner Nos.3 to 5 is allowed. In the event of their arrest in Crime Crime No.257/2020 of Gundlupete Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, accused Nos.3 to 5-petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein are ordered to be released, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein namely, Sangamesh Meti; Rajashekhar; and Sharanabasappa shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) each, with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 20 days from today, failing which this order shall stand cancelled automatically.
- 13 -
iii) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iv) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
v) They shall be available as and when Investigating Officer summons and cooperate for the purpose of investigation.
vi) They shall mark their attendance before the concerned Police Station once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the chargesheet is filed.
In the event of surrender of accused Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court is directed to expedite the bail application filed by them.
Consequently, I.A.Nos.1/2020 and 2/2020 are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-