Karnataka High Court
Madhukar S/O Ramachandra Nanappagol vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100061 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1 . MADHUKAR
S/O RAMACHANDRA NANAPPAGOL
AGE. 43 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. No.418/13, BEKKERI,
TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
2 . TRIKAL
S/O AMARSINH PATIL
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEKKERI VILLAGE,
TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
3 . BHAGYASHREE
W/O AMARSINH PATIL
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEKKERI VILLAGE,
TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.RAVIRAJ C PATIL, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD,
THROUG RAIBAG P.S.
2. PRATIBHA
W/O SADASHIV KAMBALE
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. BOMMANAL VILLAGE,
TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
(BY SRI.BAHUBALI N. KANABARAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPELLANTS (ACCUSED NOS.01 TO 03) HEREIN IN RAIBAG P.S.
CR.NO.256/2021 REGISTERED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 354(B), 504, 506 AND 149
OF IPC, SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND SECTION 3(2) (va) OF
THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT AND DIRECT
THE RAIBAG POLICE TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS IN THE EVENT
OF THEIR ARREST.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (herein after for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') for granting bail in crime No.256/2021 of Raibag Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 354(B), 504, 506 & 149 of Indian Penal Code (herein after for short 'IPC') and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) ACT, 1989 by setting aside the order in Crl.Misc.No.1172/2021 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants, learned HCGP for respondent-State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution that on the complaint of one Prathiba Sadashiva Kamble-CW1, Police have 4 registered the case in Crime No.256/2021 on 16.10.2021. It is alleged in the complaint that herself, her husband and her relatives are gone to Seemi Laxmi temple near Shelar garden land in their village on the occasion of Banni festival on 15.10.2021 and after having darshan, they were standing on road waiting for arrival of Laxmi devara Pallakki and some of her relatives went outside. At 5.45 p.m., accused no.1-Trikal Amarasimha Patil along with accused no.2-Bhagyashree Amarasimha Patil and accused no.3-Madhukar Ramachandra Nanappagola along with other followers came there and asked the Laxman Ramappa Rabakavi-CW.12 whether he is a person who is litigating with land dispute. When he disclosed his name, immediately she abused in filthy language by taking out his caste name. When another person questioned Ramappa Gurappa Gadivaddar, questioned who is he? He told his name. Again accused persons started scolding and abusing in filthy language by taking his caste name. Complainant interrupted and asked why accused persons abused them in filthy language, they dragged her saree and they outraged the modesty. Followers of accused persons 5 have also assaulted and abused complainant in filthy language and other people came to rescue her and pacified the quarrel. After registering the case, appellants and others have approached the Sessions judge for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.1172/2021 and the same came to be allowed in part, where the trial Court dismissed the applications of these three appellants and allowed the bail petition of accused nos.4 to 13. Hence, appellants are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for appellants strenuously contended that appellants are innocent of the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated by complainant and her parties as the appellants belongs to the family of Ex.M.P. of Belagavi and in order to target their family on political rivalry who is one of the MLC who is none other than brother of the husband of the accused no.1 and who is influenced person, false case has been registered against these appellants. There is delay of 28 hours in lodging the complaint. The ingredients of atrocity act are not applicable. It is also submitted by the 6 learned counsel for the appellants that Police are in the habit of filing false complaint against the family of accused no.2. Already two complaints are registered against husband of accused no.1. Whenever, appellants came to Bekkeri, they used to file a false complaint. The co-accused were already granted bail by Sessions Judge. Investigation completed, charge sheet has been filed. Police already recovered sticks and stones available on the spot. Therefore, they are not required for any investigation. Appellants are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prays for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the appellants are more powerful political persons and Police are not able to arrest them inspite of more than 8 months is over. There are 10 eye witnesses other than the complainant. The complainant in her statement recorded under 164 of Cr.P.C. also categorically stated about abusing her and her relatives by taking their caste in public place where village fair was going 7 on. The offence is serious one. They are required for custodial interrogation. There is a bar under Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, prays to reject the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the appellants.
6. The counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has also seriously objected the bail application and contended that appellants belong to a very influential political family. They came to assault complainant and her relatives on the road when they are watching palki procession. Accused no.3 has openly shouted and scolded the complainant and their parties by taking caste, thereby insulted the members of the SC/ST community. If they granted bail, they may threaten the witnesses and tamper prosecution witnesses and also commit similar offence. Therefore, he prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State 8 and counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on records.
8. The points that arose for my consideration are:-
1) Whether appellants have made out a case to set aside the order of the trial Court in rejecting their bail petition?
2) Whether they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as prayed for?
9. On perusal of the record, especially, the complaint, in complaint Smt.Pratibha Sadashiv Kambale has categorically stated that herself, her husband and her relatives, almost 12 people were went to Seemi Laxmi temple, village fair and after having darshan, they stood on the side of the temple for viewing pallakki procession. Some of them are went out side at that time. These accused nos.1 to 3 and others came there. Accused no.1 started picking up quarrel asking CW.12-Laxman Rama Rabakavi, whether he is the person litigating with land dispute. At that time when Ramu Gurappa Gadivaddar questioned accused/appellants as 9 to why he was scolding Laxman Rama Rabakavi, they abused them in filthy language by taking their caste. At that time, when complainant questioned them why they are scolding in filthy language, accused also abused her in filthy language by taking her case as 'Bosudi, Holya, Solemagale' and dragged her with holding her cloth and tearing her saree. Accused nos.2, 4 and 13 were also joined accused nos.1 to 3 and they also assaulted complainant party. Then some of the eye witnesses were pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, the accused threatened with criminal intimidation and went back. Police during investigation, recorded the statements of CW.5- Yankappa Timmanna Gadivaddara, CW-6-Mahadevi Timanna Gadivaddara, CW-7-Vasantha Ramappa Thirtha, CW-8- Eshwara Kalagowda Patil, CW-9-Aruna Bheemappa Vaddara, and CW-12-Laxman Rama Rabakavi, who is one of victim. CW-13-Lakkappa Arjun Thirtha independent witness has given statement before Police. They also stated that as stated by complainant about the overt acts of accused nos.1 to 3, they scolded and abused the complainant and other witnesses in filthy language not only in abusing words but also taking 10 their caste name in the public where the village fair was going on. That apart, CW-1 also gave her statement under 164 of Cr.P.C. before Magistrate. She has again reiterated the same before the Magistrate which reveals that there is a prima facie material placed on record against the accused nos.1 to 3 for having committed offence under provisions of Section 354, 506, 504 of IPC and also under Section 3(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
10. Learned counsel for appellants though contended that this is a false case and three other cases registered against the family of the accused, learned counsel for respondent no.2 objected the bail on the ground that they are politically strong influential person and the Police are not able to arrest them even though, they are in the same area. If they granted bail, they may threaten witnesses and also commit similar offences. The learned counsel for appellants has stated that there were other similar cases registered against the husband of the accused no.1 who is said to be Ex.M.P. of Belagavi. Of-course, there is a delay of 28 hours in 11 filing complaint. But, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this complainant and others are poor people and they cannot directly go the Police station and lodge complaint because of political strength of accused/appellants and where family members of accused & Ex. M.P and are having large number of business and education institutions which shows that they are strongest persons both by politically and economically in that area. Therefore, without going for cross examination, the Court cannot appreciate that there is a delay which was not properly explained. The attitude of the police reveals that they have not chosen to arrest the accused persons inspite of lapse of nine months. No action is taken against accused persons inspite of issuance of NBW, police could not go near to arrest the accused persons who are powerful persons in the society. It is also pertinent to note that the family of the accused is EX.M.P. family and they are family members of former M.P., they have to serve, public and poor people to uplift their life. Instead of doing so, they are committing offences and abusing the people in filthy language which is against the constitutional obligation where 12 people of that area elected them for serving the said constitution. It is nothing but fence eating crop. Even police are not able to go near them, which goes to show that they are politically strong influential person. Therefore, if anticipatory bail granted, they may not only tamper with prosecution witnesses but also threaten witness and they are going to see that witness will not give any evidence against them. That apart, they may commit similar offences as their family members are already having two similar cases. Though, learned counsel for appellants said that the very brother of the husband of the accused no.1 is a sitting MLC and at his influence, a false case has been registered, but, no material is produced before this Court to show the false case, that too when a village fair was celebrated and these people went there for temple for performing pooja and to see palkki utsava, the accused family went there abused them and committed offence.
11. Therefore, I am of the view that appellants have not made out any grounds to set aside the order of rejection 13 of bail passed by the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1172/2021. That apart there is a bar under Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail.
12. Learned counsel for appellants relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others reported in WP No.1015/2018.
13. I have gone through the judgment in detail, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically stated that if there are no ingredients to attract provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 to the Court to exercise power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Even Court exercise power under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR and charge sheet, if they misused the provisions of the Act. But, here in this case, there are more than 10 witnesses stated against the appellants regarding act committed by them i.e. abusing complainants and her relatives and assaulted them. Therefore, I am of the view that appellants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass the following: 14
ORDER Appeal filed by the appellants/accused nos.1 to 3 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HMB