Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinaykumar S/O Neelakantaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100230/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri Vinaykumar S/o Neelakantaiah
Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Harakabhavi Village, Tal. Kudligi
Dist. Ballari - 583 135
... Appellant
(By Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through Hosahalli Police Station, Hosahalli
Now rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench at Dharwad - 580 011
2. Sri Durugappa U. S/o Obayya
Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Harakabhavi village - 583 135
Tal. Kudligi, Dist. Ballari
... Respondents
(Sri Praveen Kumar Uppar, HCGP for R1;
Sri Ganapathi M. Bhat, Adv. for R2)
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A of
S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to
enlarge the appellant/accused No.2 on bail in Spl. Case
No.400/2021 on the file of Court of I Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Ballari (Crime No.39/2021 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506
R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, by the
Hosahalli Police).
This appeal having been heard and Reserved for
Judgment on 24.06.2022, coming on for 'Pronouncement
of Judgment' this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.2 under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for enlarging him on bail by setting aside the order of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Special Case No.400/2021, dated 17.05.2022, whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed the bail petition filed by the appellant.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the Government land bearing Sy.No.203/A measuring 12.04 acres situated in Harakabhavi village was granted to the grandfather of the complainant by name Tokenahalli 3 Obayya under SC/ST Scheme. That, subsequently, lot of transactions have taken and the said land was sold. Accused No.1 ultimately purchased it and he in turn sold the land. When the land was about to be mutated in the name of purchaser, the complainant raised objections alleging that without obtaining permission from the Government, the land was illegally alienated. As such, the name of the purchaser was not mutated and hence, the accused were nurturing the grudge against the complainant. It is alleged that on 07.02.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant was proceeding to his land by passing Sy.No.203/A and at that time, the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused him in filthy language with reference to his caste and then accused No.2 i.e., the present appellant assaulted him with stick on his back. In this regard the complaint came to be lodged.
3. Initially, the present appellant had filed Criminal Appeal No.100186/2021, but did not press the 4 same and the same was dismissed. The appellant is the son of accused No.1.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that accused No.1 has been already granted anticipatory bail and the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been laid down. He would further contend that the appellant has surrendered before the Court on 18.04.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody and his presence is no more required by the investigating agency. He also undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Court.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contested the appeal and disputed the claim. It is asserted that the appellant had actively participated in commission of the offence and merely because charge sheet is laid down, it is 5 not a ground for granting the bail and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that accused No.1 has been already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.100186/2021 vide order dated 30.08.2021. It is also evident that though the offence is said to have taken place on 07.02.2021 at 11.00 a.m., the complaint was lodged after more than one and half months. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint also. Further, the allegations disclose that the accused have abused the complainant with reference to his caste. These aspects are required to be tested only during the course of trial. Though there are allegations of the appellant assaulting the complainant with stick on his back, no document is forthcoming to show that the complainant had sustained any injury. Further, the investigation is already concluded and charge sheet has been laid down. The appellant is in custody since more than four months and his presence is 6 no more required by the investigating agency, as charge sheet has been laid down. The offences alleged are not punishable exclusively with death or life imprisonment. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the appellant to bail. The apprehensions raised by the respondents can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge) at Ballari in Special Case No.400/2021, rejecting the bail petition filed by the appellant/accused No.2 is set aside.
iii. The appellant/accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Spl. Case No.400/2021 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (Crime No.39/2021 registered by Hosahalli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 7 on his executing a personal bond in a sum of `1,00,000/- with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Court, subject to the following conditions:
a) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
b) The appellant shall appear before the Special Court on all dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by specific order.
c) The appellant shall regularly appear before the Special Court and co-operate in speedy disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG