Karnataka High Court
Narendra Babu M vs The State Of Karnataka By on 3 November, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7227/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Narendra Babu M
Aged about 36 years
S/o Muniyappa
R/at No.7, 4th Temple Road
Sidhanthi Block
Malleshwaram
Bengaluru - 560 003
2. Bhaskar
Aged about 41 years
S/o Ramachandraiah G C
3. P. Muniyappa
S/o Late Perumappa
Aged about 67 years
4. Smt. Gowramma
Aged about 60 years
W/o Muniyappa
Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are
R/at No.101/2, 14 & 15th Cross
Margosa Road, Malleshwaram
Bengaluru - 560 003
2
5. Smt. Drakshayini
W/o B.Bhaskar
Aged about 39 years
Both petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are
R/at No.150/1, Ejipur Main Road
1-5 Cross, Bariel Area, Ejipura,
Bengaluru - 560 047 ... Petitioners
(By Sri Shankarappa, Advocate for
Sri Hemanth Kumar K, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Vyalikaval Police Station
Bengaluru - 560 001 ... Respondent
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
even of their arrest in Crime No.122/2017 of Vyalikaval
Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 354B, 504, 506, 355
r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(POA) Act.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a 3 direction to the respondent-police to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 354B, 504, 506, 355 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.122/2017.
2. The complaint averments goes to show that the victim is working in Imanual Company at Indiranagar since two years and got acquainted with Smt. Vinutha, wife of petitioner No.1 and very often she was going to the house of said Vinutha. At that time, mother-in-law of said Vinutha asked the caste of the informant, informant said that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Then the mother-in-law said not to come to their house. The further allegation is that, on 22.07.2017 when the complainant was going to watch musical concert "Suhana Safar" at Chowdayya Hall, the 4 petitioner No.1 restrained the informant and abused her that she instigated his wife to give complaint against them and pulled her, petitioner No.2 touched her body by holding her clothes, petitioner No.4 abused her in filthy language as she belongs to scheduled caste and told others to kill the complainant. Then, Muniyappa petitioner No.3 assaulted with slippers, at that time people gathered. Then the accused persons went away. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Though this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as there is a bar, the Court has to consider whether 5 the complaint and other materials make out a case under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act.
5. I have carefully perused the complaint averments. Looking to the complaint averments, it is stated by the complainant that, the petitioners abused her by taking her caste and they have also assaulted her. There are no specific allegations and specific averments regarding the words used and simply telling that they abused the complainant is not sufficient. Apart from that, the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint to which caste the petitioners belong to. In the absence of such mention, the complainant cannot take advantage of Section 18 of the said Act. Because, if the petitioners also belong to similar community, then there cannot be offence under the provisions of the said Act.
6. Considering these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that, whatever the averments made in 6 the complaint and other materials, at this stage, will not make out a case under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the Act cannot be a bar for maintaining the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., So far as the other IPC offences are concerned, the injuries are simple in nature, the complainant took treatment only as an out patient, she never got admitted to the hospital. At this stage, her condition is safe. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners contended that they are falsely implicated, they are innocent, they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present 7 petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 354B, 504, 506, 355 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.122/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and have to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum 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 Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with further investigation.8
iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute personal bonds and surety bonds.
SD/-
JUDGE KMV*