Karnataka High Court
Sri Neelakantaiah S/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100186/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NEELAKANTAIAH S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARAKABHAVI, VILLAGE,
TAL KUKLIGI, DIST BALLARI
2. SHRI. VINAYKUMAR S/O NEELAKANTAIAH
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST BALLARI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV.)
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
2. SRI. DURUGAPPA U. S/O OBAYYA
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST BALLARI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP,
R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(PA) ACT. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPELLANTS / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CRIME NO.39/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
2
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324, 420, 504 AND 506 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND
3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, BY THE HOSAHALLI
POLICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo stating that appeal against appellant No.2/accused No.2 is not pressed. The memo is taken on record and the appeal filed by appellant No.2/accused No.2 Vinaykumar S. Neelakantaiah stands dismissed as not pressed.
2. Appellant No.1 has filed this appeal under Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act' for short) seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.39/2021 of Hosahalli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 420, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
3
3. The factual matrix leading to the case are that, Government has granted patta in respect of land bearing Sy.No.203/A measuring 12.04 acres situated at Harakabhavi village to the complainant's grandfather by name Tokenahalli Obayya under SC/ST Scheme and his name appeared till 1974-75. It is alleged that the said land was purchased without obtaining permission from the Government and they have cheated the complainant by illegally purchasing the land about 2.00 acres, out of 12.04 acres on 19.11.2020 and got registered their name. It is alleged that complainant has given a complaint to the revenue officer in this regard and as such, the appellants having the knowledge of lodging the complaint by the complainant, on 07.02.2021 at about 11.00 a.m. when the complainant was draining the water to the groundnut crop in his land, the appellants abused him with reference to his caste and assaulted him with stick and hands. Hence, it is alleged that the appellants have committed the offences as alleged. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, a case was registered in crime No.39/2021 4 for the offences referred to supra. The appellants apprehending their arrest approached the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 06.07.2021 rejected the anticipatory bail petition. Hence, the appellants claim that they have approached this court.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. Perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there are transactions since long time and no overt act is alleged against appellant No.1 and the court below committed an error in rejecting the bail petition. He would contend that bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not applicable as against appellant No.1. Hence, he seeks to admit appellant No.1 on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the appeal and contended that appellant No.1 along with his son appellant No.2 have 5 trespassed into the land of the complainant and abused him with reference to his caste and assaulted him. He would contend that there is prima facie material and the evidence of eye-witness is available and as such, he sought for rejection of the appeal, as there is bar for granting anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the incident has taken place on 07.02.2021 at 11.00 a.m. The allegation further disclose that appellant No.2/accused No.2 has assaulted the complainant by abusing him with reference to his caste and no allegations are made against appellant No.1/accused No.1. Further, the complainant claimed that he was in the land allotted to his grand father, but which survey number the alleged offence has taken place is not at all forthcoming. It is alleged that, in the FIR the alleged incident has taken place in Sy.No.203/A, but there is no evidence that Sy.No.203/A is in possession of the 6 complainant. The records produced by the appellants does disclose that lot of transactions have taken place and the entire land has been transferred by the members of the complainant's family and there is no evidence to show that complainant's family is in possession and cultivation of the land. Under these circumstances, when there is no specific allegation against appellant No.1 regarding he abusing the complainant with reference to his caste, question of attracting offence under SC/ST Act against him at this juncture does not arise at all. Looking to the age of appellant No.1, there is no impediment for admitting him on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP could be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge At Ballari in Crl.Misc.No.248/2021 rejecting the anticipatory bail of appellant No.1/accused No.1 is set aside.7
In the event of arrest of appellant No.1/accused No.1 in crime No.39/2021 of Hosahalli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 420, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, he shall be released on bail, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, subject to the following conditions:
i. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall surrender before Investigating Officer within 15 days from today and in the event of his surrender as directed above, Investigating Officer shall release him on bail as directed. ii. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall co-operate in the investigation and mark his attendance before the S.H.O. on every first and third Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till submission of the charge sheet. 8 iii. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
iv. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings, unless he is exempted by the court specifically. v. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall furnish proof of his correct address and shall intimate the court regarding change in address, if any. Violation of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.
The appeal as against appellant No.2/accused No.2 stands dismissed as not pressed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-