Venktesh Patil vs The State Through on 2 November, 2018

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Venktesh Patil vs The State Through on 2 November, 2018

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                            1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

                        BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200935/2018


BETWEEN:

VENKATESH PATIL
S/O KASHIRAO PATIL,
AGE : 45 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O AZAD NAGAR,
RAICHUR-585 601.
                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH
RAICHUR WEST P.S.,
BY THE SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585 107.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI P.S. PATIL, HCGP)
                                2


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT P.S. TO ENLARGE THE
ACCUSED PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN THEIR CRIME NO.100/2018 FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 504, 506, 355
R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 (1)(R),
3(1)(S) AND 3(2)(V-A) OF SC & ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
1ST ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.1 has sought for an order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.100/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 355 R/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by one Srinivas alleging that on 21.06.2018, at bout 5-00 p.m., when complainant's son had gone to medical shop near ATM Circle, Nijalingappa Colony, accused No.2 Basan Gouda B. Patil unlawfully restrained 3 him and abused him calling out his caste and kicked him with shoes and assaulted him with hands on his head.

3. It is alleged that prior to the said incident, when the lecturer asked the students as to who has claimed SC & ST scholarship, he was assaulted in the school calling out his caste.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the FIR registered against the son of the complainant herein and one Shankar Askihal at the instance of Basana Gouda B. Patil alleging that on 21.06.2018 at 5-00 p.m., when complainant and his friend Pratham had gone to drink water near ATM Circle, Nijalingappa Colony, both accused there namely, Rohan Paul and Shankar Askihal obstructed the complainant and assaulted him with hands causing grievous injuries. The said FIR is registered under Sections 341, 324, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. This complainant was lodged on the next day of the incident i.e., on 22.06.2018, whereas the complainant in the instant case is lodged on 4 26.06.2018, even though, the incident is stated to have been taken place on 21.06.2018. The allegations made in the rival complaint indicate that in respect of the same offence, the parties have resorted to criminal action by filing counter complaints.

5. Having regard to the above circumstance, though there are allegations that the complainant in crime No.100/2018 was abused in the public, in my view it cannot be said that the said incident has taken place on account of the caste of the complainant. On the other hand, the allegations appear to have been contrived only to invoke the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act. Yet having regard to the circumstance, in which the alleged incident had taken place and the son of the petitioner as well as victims being the students studying in the same college, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation into the alleged offence. Therefore, taking into consideration all 5 the above facts and circumstances, in my view, the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Hence, the following order:-

Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-

a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh(Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

b. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

c. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

Sd/-

JUDGE RSP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court