Karnataka High Court
Gopi S/O Nagappa Lamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101967 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. GOPI S/O NAGAPPA LAMANI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUILTURE & SOCIAL WORK,
DIRECTOR, BAJSS GROUP, RANEBENNUR,
R/O: KANDERAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. MAHADEVANAGOUDA S/O GURANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SOCIAL WORK,
SECRETARY, BAJSS GROUP, RANEBENNUR,
R/O: KRUSHI BHAVAN, OLD BYADGI ROAD,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
3. SHASHIDAR S/O BASAVAREDDY SUNKAPUR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: CHAIRMAN,
BAJSS GROUP, RANEBENNUR,
R/O: KOPPAL CHAWL, APMC ROAD, RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. VISHNU S/O N. JINGADE
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SOCIAL WORK,
DIRECTOR, BAJSS GROUP,
RANEBENNUR, R/O: GOULI GALLI,
DEVARAGUDDA ROAD,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
:2:
5. BASAVAREDDY S/O VASAPPA GIRADDY,
(THE SURNAME OF THIS PERSON IS
WRONGLY SHOWN AS
GIRIRADDI INSTEAD OF GIRADDY)
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SOCIAL WORK,
DIRECTOR, BAJSS GROUP,
RANEBENNUR, R/O: YAREKUPPI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
6. SIDDAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA AMBALI
(THE SURNAME OF THIS PERSON IS
WRONGLY SHOWN AS HAMBLI
INSTEAD OF AMBALI)
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & SOCIAL KWORK,
DIRECTOR, BAJSS GROUP, RANEBENNUR,
R/O: GANESH NAGAR,
HALAGERI ROAD, RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P. P. HITTALAMANI, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THORUGH RANEBENNUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO DIRECT THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CHARGE OF RANEBENNUR TOWN
P.S. IN CRIME NO. 214 OF 2017 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 3(1)(r) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014 AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(Va)
OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT
BILL 2015 AND UNDER SECTION 143, 354(B), 506, 504, 149,
353, 323 OF IPC TO RELEASE THESE PETITIONERS ON BAIL, IN
THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST.
:3:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 and under Section 3(2)(va) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill 2015 and under Section 143, 354B, 506, 504, 353, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.214/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Smt. Premakka W/o Narayan Dambarahalli, lodged the complaint alleging that petitioners have gone to the campus of BAJSS college :4: Halageri road Ranebennur and asked the complainant to open the door of the office of Managing Committee, she resisted saying that they are not the members of Managing Committee and on the other hand she has stated that Rudrappa M. Lamani is the Chairman and R.M.Kuberappa is the Secretary of the Managing Committee and office of the Managing Committee will be opened only when they come and at that time the petitioners have abused her and gave her threat and the further allegation that they have taken the name and her caste and one Sri.M.G.Patil pushed her, pulled her sarree and she has not seen them conducting the meeting in the premises of the said college. Other accused have also abused her in filthy language and she has requested them not to harass her and not to put the threat to her life and those persons were not at all reading to her request, then the other persons came and pacified the quarrel. Thereafter all the accused forcibly opened door of the office of Managing Committee sat there and thereafterwards they have gone away. She went to home and enquired with her family members and :5: thereafter, she enquired with the Managing Committee people and filed the belated complaint.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused No.1 to 6 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission, looking to the allegations made in the compliant, they are all the false allegations and the said complaint is filed by way of counter blast to the complaint already filed by petitioner No.1 herein against the complainant and others. He also made submission, that there are civil litigations pending before the Court, therefore, he submitted only to create evidence for the civil litigations, such false complaint has been filed by the complainant at the instigation of the other committee members in the said institution. He submitted that petitioners are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court and he also submitted that as :6: the prosecution material will not make out a prima facie case against the alleged offence, even under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 18 of the said Act cannot be a bar to entertain the petition. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.
5. Per contra the learned HCGP firstly made submission, that Section 18 is a bar to entertain the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. He also made submission looking to the complaint averments there are specific allegations made by the complainant against the accused persons for the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Hence, he submitted the petition itself is not maintainable, even with regard to the other IPC offence also. Learned HCGP made submission, that there is a sufficient prima facie material produced by the prosecution against the petitioners herein and hence he submitted to reject the bail petition.
:7:
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint pertaining to Crime No.214/2017 and looking to the compliant averments no doubt the complainant made the allegations that she is working as a peon in BAJSS women College Halgeri at Ranebeenur. Looking to the documents produced by the petitioners herein, there is also the document complaint and FIR in Crime No.213/2017 filed against the complainant and others. The said complaint is first in time, wherein the allegations are made against the complainant and his men about the offences committed, which came to be registered as against the complainant and others and the present complaint is the subsequent complaint filed. Therefore, at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is justified in making the submission that it is the belated and after thought complaint only as a counter blast to their case. I have also perused the materials, wherein it is noticed that civil litigations are also pending before the Court between the complainant and accused side, the suit is in O.S.No.358/2001 and :8: thereafterwards the R.A.No.31/2010 and RSA before this Court are also filed and pending. Considering all these materials placed on record, they prima facie goes to show that there are civil litigations pending between both the parties. When that is so, it is difficult at this stage to accept the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners herein abused the complainant by taking the caste name and thereby they have committed the offences even under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioners contended that they are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offences and they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Considering all these aspects of the matter I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be grated with anticipatory bail.
7. Petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.214/2017 registered for the above said offence, subject to the following conditions: :9:
i. Each petitioner have to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-