Karnataka High Court
Shri. Gurushantayya S/O. Gavisiddayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 T H DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100096 OF 2021
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100097 OF 2021
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100098 OF 2021
IN CRIMINAL A PPEAL NO.100096 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
1. SHRI TIMMANNA S/O. BUDDAPPA UPPAR,
AGE-26 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O.HITNAL, TQ & DIST- KOPPAL,
PIN-583 231.
2. SHRI AVINASH KUMAR S/O.YOGENDRA SHUKLA,
AGE- 29 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O.HITNAL, TQ & DIST- KOPPAL,
PIN-583 231.
3. SHRI MANJUNATH S/O.RANGAPPA BANAJIGA,
AGE- 42 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O.HITNAL, TQ & DIST- KOPPAL,
PIN-583 231.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
2
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH MUNIRABAD P.S.
DIST-KOPPAL-580001.
2. SHRI CHIDANAND S/O RAMESH BHOVI,
AGE-28 YEARS, OCC-GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O GANGAVATI, TQ-GANGAVATI,
DIST KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1)
(R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
AND PRAYED THAT ACCUSED NOS.9, 13 AND 14
MAY KINDLY RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL IN FIR
(SC/ST) NO.211/2021 (MUNIRABAD P.S. CRIME
NO.78/2021) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 341, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324,
355, 427, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SCHEDULED
CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRI BES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PENDING BEFORE THE
LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS/SPECIAL
JUDGE, KOPPAL IN SO FAR AS APPELLANTS ARE
CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL A PPEAL NO.100097 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
1. SHRI GURUSHANTAYYA S/O.GAVISIDDAYYA
SHASHIMATH, AGE-23 YEARS,
OCC-PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O. HOSALLI, TQ. AND DIST-KOPPAL,
PIN-583 231.
3
2. SHRI SHARANAYYA S/O.MUDAKAYYA
HIREMATH, AGE-25 YEARS,
OCC-PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O. HOSALLI, TQ. AND DIST-KOPPAL,
PIN-583 231.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH MUNIRABAD P.S.
DIST-KOPPAL-580001.
2. SHRI CHIDANAND S/O RAMESH BHOVI,
AGE-28 YEARS, OCC-GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O GANGAVATI, TQ-GANGAVATI,
DIST KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1)
(R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
AND PRAYED THAT ACCUSED NOS.11 AND 12 MAY
KINDLY RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL IN FIR (SC/ST)
NO.211/2021 (MUNIRABAD P.S.CRIME NO.78/2021)
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
341, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 427, 504, 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL.
4
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL
IN SO FAR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL A PPEAL NO.100098 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
SURESH S/O.HULAGAPPA GUGGRI,
AGED 25 YEARS, OCC-PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O.HITNAL, TQ. AND DIST-KOPPAL,
PIN-583 231.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD,
THROUGH MUNIRABAD P.S.
DIST-KOPPAL-580001.
2. SHRI CHIDANAND S/O RAMESH BHOVI,
AGE-28 YEARS, OCC-GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O GANGAVATI, TQ-GANGAVATI,
DIST KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1)
(R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
AND PRAYED THAT ACCUSED NO.1 MAY KINDLY
RELEASED ON REGULAR BAIL IN FIR (SC/ST)
5
NO.211/2021 (MUNIRABAD P.S.CRIME NO.78/2021)
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
341, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 427, 504, 506
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL
IN SO FAR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERNED.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.100096/2021 has been
filed by accused Nos.9, 13 and 14 challenging
the order dated 17.04.2021. Criminal Appeal
No.100097/2021 has been filed by accused
Nos.11 and 12 challenging the order dated
17.04.2021. Criminal Appeal No.100098/2021
has been filed by accused No.1 challenging the
order dated 17.04.2021. In all the three
appeals the orders under challenge are dated
17.04.2021 passed by the Principal District and
Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal rejecting the
6
bail applications filed by the accused Nos.1, 9,
11 to 14 of Munirabad Police Station Crime
No.78/2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355,
427, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'SC/ST (POA) Act', for brevity).
2. Notice to respondent No.2 has been
served and he remained unrepresented.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and learned HCGP for
respondent No.1-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that one
Chidanand S/o Ramesh Bhovi, AEE, Karnataka
Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation
7
Department, Sub-division, Gangavathi had filed
complaint stating that on 25.03.2021 at about
10.30 a.m. the complainant and his contractor
one-Nagaraj S/o Yallappa Chalageri, Bhovi,
along with a rented car driver one-Prashant
S/o. Laxman Bhovi went in a car bearing
No.KA-37/B-0088 to Koppal D.F.O. Office in
order to discuss about Chikkabenaskal Rajeev
Gandhi Drinking Water Scheme. While
returning, when they were near Shahapur Toll
while they were proceeding to Gangavathi at
about 4.15 p.m., the toll staff stopped the car
and asked about toll charges, for which, the
driver of the car said since it is a Government
vehicle it is exempted from paying toll charges,
but the toll staff did not agree and persistently
demanded toll charges. In this process an
altercation took place between the accused/
8
appellants and the complainant and eventually
it lead to assaulting and abusing the
complainant by taking his caste name and as
such he was alleged to have been humiliated in
the public and they alleged to have given
threat with dire consequences and caused
damage to their car by pelting stones. A
written complaint filed by the said Chidanand
came to be registered in Crime No.78/2021 of
Munirabad Police Station for the aforesaid
offences. The appellants were arrested on
25.03.2021 and remanded to judicial custody.
The appellants have filed bail applications and
the same was rejected by Principal District and
Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal by two
separate orders dated 17.04.2021. Aggrieved
by the said orders, the appellants are before
9
this Court seeking to set aside the said orders
and grant of regular bail.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that on perusal of the entire
complaint, no overt acts of the appellants/
accused Nos.9 and 11 to 14 have been stated.
The name of the appellants/accused Nos.9 and
11 to 14 have been mentioned only at the
instance of accused No.1-Suresh when he
revealed their names on seeing the video clips
received by one-Krishna, Police Constable
through social media. He further contended
that the appellants/accused Nos. 1, 9 and 11 to
14 are innocent and they have not committed
any offences as alleged and they have been
falsely implicated in the case. He further
contended that the offences alleged are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
10
He further contended that the Trial Court
ignored all these aspects and therefore, the
orders passed by the Trial Court require to be
set aside. With this, he prayed to allow the
appeals.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that
investigation has been completed and charge
sheet has been filed against the appellants and
other accused for the offences stated in the
FIR. CW-4 and CW-5 are injured eyewitnesses.
CW-6 to CW-8 are eyewitnesses to the
incident. The learned HCGP has made available
the copy of the charge sheet. He further
contended that on looking into the charge
sheet materials, there is a prima facie case
against the appellants for the offences alleged
against them. If the appellants are released on
bail, they will tamper the prosecution
11
witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he
prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
7. Having regard to the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned High Court Government Pleader. I have
carefully and cautiously perused the FIR,
complaint, impugned orders and charge sheet
papers. The complainant is a public servant.
He was passing through the toll and travelling
in a car bearing No.KA-37/B-0088. In the said
toll the appellants and other accused were
working as staff. On seeing the said
registration number, it appears that it is not a
Government car and it is a private car. On
looking to the complaint and charge sheet
papers, the main allegation is against the
accused No.1/Suresh. No overt acts have been
alleged against the appellants/accused Nos.9,
12
11 to 14 in the FIR and complaint. The names
of the appellants have been stated by accused
No.1-Suresh on looking to the video clip shown
by appellants, which is received by one of the
Police staff in his mobile through social media.
The appellant/accused No.1-Suresh is a toll
staff and it is not a case of the prosecution
that he is acquainted with the complainant and
he knows his caste. Whether the accused No.1
abused the complainant touching his caste is a
matter of trial. The offences alleged are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
There are no criminal antecedents of the
appellants. The appellants are in judicial
custody since 25.03.2021. As charge sheet is
filed, appellants are not required for custodial
interrogation. All these aspects have not been
considered by the Trial Court while passing
13
impugned orders. Hence, the impugned orders
require to be set aside by allowing the appeals.
8. The main objection of the prosecution is
that if the appellants are granted bail, they will
tamper the prosecution witnesses, the said
objection may be set right by imposing some
stringent conditions.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case
and submission of the counsel, this Court is of
the view that there are valid grounds for
setting aside the impugned orders and granting
bail subject to terms and conditions. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal Nos.100096, 100097 and 100098 of 2021 are allowed.
14
Impugned orders dated 17.04.2021 passed by Principal District and Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal in Crime No.78/2021 of Munirabad Police Station are set aside.
The bail applications filed by appellants/ accused Nos.1, 9 and 11 to 14 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed. Consequently, the appellants/accused Nos.1, 9 and 11 to 14 shall be released on bail in Crime No.78/2021 of Munirabad Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The appellants/accused Nos.1, 9 and 11
to 14 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the appellants are permitted to furnish surety within two months. If the circumstances arise, the jurisdictional 15 Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.ii) The appellants/accused Nos.1, 9 and 11
to 14 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.iii) The appellants/accused Nos.1, 9 and 11
to 14 shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckk