Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7737/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGESH
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. SRI. MURALI
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
3. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT RAJAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE
VEMAGAL HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 563 101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VEMAGAL POLICE
KOLAR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.170/2017 OF
VEMAGAL POLICE STATION, KOLAR, WHICH IS REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 324,
354, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(X) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. This is the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The respondent - Vemagal Police Station, Kolar have registered a complaint against the petitioners in Crime No.170/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. 3
3. The complaint was made by one Mala stating that in front to her house her father had dug a pit. One Ramakrishnappa quarreled with them for the said reason and therefore, the work had been stopped.
4. On 6.8.2017 at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant was standing in front of her house, petitioner No.1 - Nagesh went there and put some stones into the pit. When she asked, he abused her in a filthy language taking the name of her caste. As she shouted, he assaulted her with a stone on her left leg and left side of her waist. When her father came out of the house for her rescue, the other two petitioners came to that place and assaulted the complainant's father and caused bleeding injuries.
5. From the complaint itself, it can be made out that basically the dispute was with regard to digging the pit. Though some allegations are there complainant took the name of her caste, but the intentional caste attack is not 4 forthcoming. Therefore, Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act does not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail. The other offences under IPC are bailable. Hence, the following order:
Petition is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioners by the respondent in connection with Crime No. 170/2017, they shall be released on bail upon their executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigation officer. .
Petitioners are subjected to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon;
2. Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every Sunday of each 5 calendar month between 9.00 a.m. & 12 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;
3. Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
4. Petitioners shall not involve themselves in any criminal activities; and
5. If the petitioners violate any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE LB