Karnataka High Court
Sri Revansiddappa S/O Irappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100220 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI REVANSIDDAPPA
S/O IRAPPA RAGHUNATHANAHALLI
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HAROGERI,
TQ. MUNDARGI, DIST. GADAG
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY P.S.I., MUNDARGI P.S
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD 580011.
2. SRI. DURGAPPA
S/O TIPPANNA MADAR
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR,
R/O. HAROGERI,
TQ. MUNDARGI, DIST. GADAG- 582101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
(R2-SERVED WITH NOTICE, UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT AT GADAG IN CRL.MISC.NO.136/2022, DATED
22.04.2022 REJECTING THE PETITION SEEKING ANTICIPATORY
BAIL AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT HEREIN ON BAIL, IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST, IN CRIME NO.62/2022 DATED 03.04.2022
REGISTERED BY THE MUNDARGI POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1) (r) (S), 3(1) (s) AND 3(2)(v-a) OF THE PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES ACT, 1989.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant/accused under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989)( herein after for short' SC/ST(POA) Act,1989) for setting aside the order of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, in Crl.Misc.No.136/2022 dated 22.04.2022 for having rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after for short 'Cr.P.C.').
3
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of complainant/respondent No.2, Police have registered case in Crime No.62/2022 dated 03.04.2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 323,504,506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST(POA) Act,1989. It is alleged by the complainant that on 02.04.2022 in the night hours, in the village where there was Hanumappa Temple fair, there was orchestra organized by the villagers. In the said orchestra in the early morning i.e. on 03.04.2022 the orchestra party singers sung the song pertaining to kurubaru viz 'kurubaru navu kurubaru', after hearing this song the complainant and others were also requested to sing a song pertaining to Mahanayaka Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, though the orchestra singers stated they have sing the song but they have not sing the song and they stopped the orchestra. When the complainant and 4 others were requested why they not sing the said song that can be appellant and others were came to there and abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the caste, insulted him in public and also assaulted and shown intimidation on the complainant. Therefore, he went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint against him. The Police after registering the case making an effective efforts to arrest the appellant and arrested him. The appellant approached before the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected and hence he is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences. Even otherwise the incident took place not in the public view and no intention to insult the members of the SC and ST caste. The investigation is also completed and charge sheet has been filed. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. As per the instructions received from the complainant, the appellant and the villagers were already 5 imposed ban on the complainant that no body should talk with the complainant and also imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- if anyone talked with the complainant. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously contended that the matter is very serious. There is a social ban imposed on the complainant by the appellant, appellant's relatives and the villagers. The appellant is absconding and he has not at all participated or co-operated in the investigation. There are three eye witnesses to the incident. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments of both the counsel and perused the records.
7. On perusal of records it reveals that, as per the complainant it was a public programme, orchestra played in the public on the eve of the Hanumappa Temple Fair. During the orchestra the orchestra players sang a song pertaining to Kurubar caste, therefore the complainant and others were 6 requested the orchestra singers to sing a song pertaining Mahanayaka i.e. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Though the singers said to be told to sing but they closed the orchestra before singing. Therefore this complainant and others approached the orchestra singers why they have not sing the song pertaining to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and at that time this accused/appellant came and abused the complainant and others in filthy language by taking their caste and also assaulted and shown intimidation on them. Therefore the complaint came to be lodged. The complaint was lodged on 03.04.2022, inspite of lapse of more than a month in between filing the charge sheet the appellant was not co-operated in the investigation and not appear before the Court. There are three eye witnesses to the incident i.e. CWs-4 to 6 by name Praveen, Kotesh and Nandesh, all are given their statements before the Police stating that in the presence of public the appellant abused them in filthy language by taking caste and insulted and he requested for sing a song pertaining to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.
7
8. Be that as it may, though the Police already filed the charge sheet but the complainant appear before the Court and instructed the learned High Court Government Pleader where the relatives of the accused and the elders of the village are imposed social ban on the complaint stating that if any villagers are in touch with the complainant or speak with the complainant they will imposed Rs.25,000/- as fine, which cannot be allowed by the law and the appellant not only influenced the others to imposed social ban on the complainant and also family of the complainant. The matter cannot be taken as lightly, as it is simple offence but is a serious issue and not only abusing the complainant, it is the strong message to the society a person who commit the offence shall be punished in accordance with law and the social ban on complainant cannot be appreciated.
9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appellant/accused is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8
10. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB-Para 1 to 2 SMM-Para 3 to till end.