Karnataka High Court
Darshan Nayaka vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Crl.A.No.183/2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183/2022
BETWEEN:
1. DARSHAN NAYAKA
S/O G.S.SHIVU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
2. ABHISHEK NAYAKA
S/O G.S.SHIVU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
BOTH R/AT SURYA NILAYA
NIMISHAMBA TEMPLE ROAD,
GANJAM, SRIRANGAPATNA
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE
MANDYA DISTRICT
REP: BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001 ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP,
SRI.JAGADISH C., SPL.P.P. FOR
FIRST INFORMANT/COMPLAINANT)
Crl.A.No.183/2022
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT READ WITH SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04.01.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1261/2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MANDYA AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THE APPELLANTS BEING APPREHENDED ON THE
COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.251/2021 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 197, 198, 420 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(1)(Q) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015
AND UNDER SECTION 5(B) OF SC/ST AND OTHER B.C
(RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT ACT) 1990 AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the rejection of anticipatory bail petition, the accused in Crime No.251/2021 of Srirangapatna Police Station has preferred the above appeal.
2. Appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.251/2021 of Srirangapatna Police Station. Appellants are the sons of one Shivu and Rajeshwari. Crl.A.No.183/2022 3 On 18.08.2017 Tahsildar issued Caste Certificate in favour of the appellants to the effect that they belong to `Nayaka Community' (Schedule Tribe).
3. The District Caste Verification Committee by its order dated 31.08.2021 ordered for cancellation of caste certificates of the appellants on the ground that they belong to `Besta Community' a non schedule tribe/caste and by furnishing false information that they belonged to `Nayaka Community', they have obtained false certificates.
4. The District Caste Verification Committee also held that the appellants by impersonation obtained false certificates and cheated the Government servants. Further the District Caste Verification Committee directed respondent No.2 the police inspector, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Mysuru to file a complaint against the Crl.A.No.183/2022 4 appellants. Accordingly he filed a complaint before the respondent-police.
5. On the basis of such complaint, respondent has registered Crime No.251/2021 against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 197, 198 and 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(q) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and Section 5(b) of Karnataka SC/ST and other B.C (Reservation of Appointment Act), 1990.
6. Apprehending their arrest in the said case, appellants filed anticipatory bail application before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order rejected their petition on the ground that Section 18 of the Act bars granting of anticipatory bail in such cases. The trial court also holds that based on such caste certificates, the appellants applied for Crl.A.No.183/2022 5 Engineering seat in CET competitive examination. Therefore there is a prima facie case attracting Section 18 of the Act.
7. Sri.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior counsel for appellants submits that the marriage of the parents of appellants was inter-caste marriage and their mother belonged to `Nayaka Community'. He further submits that they urged such contention before the Caste Verification Committee and the Committee rejected the same and now the matter is pending in appeal before the Director of Tribal Welfare, Bengaluru. Therefore he submits that the order of the Caste Verification Committee cannot be called as prima facie material in proof of the alleged offences.
8. Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel for first informant and Sri.Shankar H.S., learned HCGP for respondent submit that in the appeal filed by Crl.A.No.183/2022 6 appellants there is no interim stay order and the order of the Caste Verification Committee still operates. He submits that in view of that there is prima facie material to attract provision of Sections 18 and 18A of the Act which bars grant of anticipatory bail.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathviraj Chauhan Vs Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 and Rahna Jalal Vs State of Kerala and another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 733 held that Section 18A of the Act bars grant of anticipatory bail when prima facie material exists. It was further held that where there is no prima facie material to indicate that the case attracts applicability of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act the exclusion of Section 438 of Cr.P.C does not apply. It was further held excluding anticipatory bail infringes right to liberty. It was held that for the court to apply bar to Section 438 Cr.P.C., the test is whether there is Crl.A.No.183/2022 7 prima facie material attracting the applicability of the provisions of the Act.
10. In the case on hand before the Caste Verification Committee the appellants contended that their mother belonged to Schedule Tribe, therefore acquired the status of Schedule Tribe community. The District Caste Verification Committee rejected the said contention holding that their mother did not come before the Committee.
11. Admittedly against the said order, an appeal is preferred under Section 4(d) of the Karnataka SC/ST and other B.C (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 before the Director of Tribal Welfare in Appeal No.15/2021. Section 4(d) of the said Act does not provide for granting any interim order. In this case the appellants have also produced copy of caste certificate of their mother M.Rajeshwari Crl.A.No.183/2022 8 issued by Tahsildar, Kollegal on 28.08.2002. In that she is shown to be member of Schedule Tribe Community.
12. Learned Special counsel for the first informant relied on following Judgments of this court in support of his contentions:
(i) Crl.P.No.778/2021- Smt.Jayanthi Vs State of Karnataka - disposed of 17.03.2021.
(ii) Crl.P.No.4736/2014 - Sri.R.Mallaraju Vs State of Karnataka - disposed of on 22.08.2014.
(iii) Crl.P.No.312/2014 -Shri.Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka and anr - disposed of on 29.07.2021.
(iv)W.P.No.8931/2016 -
Sri.S.L.Sathyanarayana Rao Vs State of
Crl.A.No.183/2022
9
Karnataka and anr - disposed of on
28.09.2018.
13. As against that learned Senior counsel for the appellants relied on the following Judgments:
(i) 2017 SCC Online Kar 3725 -
Sri.Mallikarjun Sutturmath Vs State of
Karnataka
(ii) Crl.A.No.1361/2021 -Smt.K.Susheela Vs State of Karnataka and anr - disposed of on 01.10.2021.
14. Perusal of the Judgments of Jayanthi and R.Mallaraj shows that in those cases no appeals were pending. Ramesha's case and S.L.Sathyanarayana Rao's case did not deal with the matter under Section 14A of the Act. They were under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of the proceedings.
15. In R.Mallaraju and Mallikarjun Sutturmath's cases noticing that appeal against order of Caste Crl.A.No.183/2022 10 Verification Committee was pending, it was held that such order of committee does not become prima facie material to attract the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. Since the appeal against order of Caste Verification Committee is pending Judgments relied by learned Special counsel cannot be justifiably applicable to this case.
16. So far as apprehension of tampering the evidence, all the evidence in the case is in the form of documentary evidence. They are official records. Therefore chance of the appellants tampering them is very remote.
17. In the circumstances trial court was not justified in holding that Section 18 of the Act is applicable. Such view of the trial court was contrary to the principles held in Prathviraj Chauhan and Crl.A.No.183/2022 11 Rahna Jalal's case. Therefore unsustainable. Consequently appeal is allowed.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellants are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.251/2021 of Srirangapatna Police Station. If they are arrested in the same case, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) They shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and furnish one surety each in the likesum.
(iii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise.
Crl.A.No.183/202212
(iv) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN