Allowed

Santosh S/O Suryakanth Biradar and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2016CRL.P/200615/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail petition was allowed. The Court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act did not apply as the alleged caste-based abuse occurred over a phone call and was not in public view, distinguishing it from physical attacks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on executing personal bonds for Rs. 25,000 each with one surety.

Santosh S/O Suryakanth Biradar and Anr. Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200615/2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Santosh S/o Suryakanth Biradar Age: 35 years, Occupation: Agriculture & G.P. Member

¶9

Satish S/o Chandrakant Biradar Age: 28 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Both Residents of Village Sangam, Taluk: Aurad (B), District: Bidar. … PETITIONERS

¶10

(Shri Anil Kumar Navadagi, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka through Kamal Nagar Police Station, Taluk: Aurad (B), District: Bidar. … RESPONDENT (Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)

¶13

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to allow the petition and give a direction to the respondent Kamala Nagar Police Station of District Bidar to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.58/2016 of Kamal Nagar Police Station of District Bidar, which is now pending on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (10) of SC/ST Act & under Sections 506, 504, 143, 332, 147, 148, 384, 149, 342 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The present petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail, in the following circumstances:

¶18

The complainant is one Subhash, the Panchayat Development Officer, Khed village. His complaint is that he was abused by the petitioners and others with reference to his caste in a derogatory fashion, apart from attacking him and causing injuries.

¶19

¶20

It was specifically alleged that petitioner No.1 had called the complainant over the mobile phone and abused him with reference to his caste in a derogatory language, as a result of which an offence punishable under provisions of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’, for brevity) has been invoked. The court below has rejected the petition of the first petitioner seeking anticipatory bail, in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of SC & ST Act and further has rejected anticipatory bail insofar as the second petitioner due to the fact that there is a direct allegation of the second petitioner having attacked and physically having caused injuries.

¶21

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that several persons similarly accused as the petitioners, have been enlarged on bail. In so far as the accusation in respect of offence punishable under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC/ST Act is

¶22

¶23

concerned, the bar under Section 18 of the Act would apply, if allegations of having committed such offence is prima facie, shown to have been committed in public view. Admittedly, the language used by the petitioners allegedly was on the phone and it was certainly not in public view. Therefore, there is reason to grant anticipatory bail as was done in the case of several other accused who were similarly placed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) each, with one surety, each, for a likesum;

¶24

the petitioners shall undertake to co-operate with the investigating authorities as and when called upon, to assist in the investigation;

¶25

the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court; and

¶26

¶27

the petitioners shall not, in any manner, seek to tamper

¶28

with the prosecution evidence.

¶29

��

¶30

��

¶31

sdu

Santosh S/O Suryakanth Biradar and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Suryakanth Biradar and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayashankar @ Shankar Vs State of Karnataka

Tammanagouda S/O Gurulingappagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddeshwar @ Siddappa S/O Manohar Maled Vs the State of Karnataka

Pandurang S/O Jagannath Deshpandeand Ors. Vs the State through P.S.I Afzalpur Police

Santosh S/O Gundapp Vs the State through

The State of Karnataka Vs Nagappa S/O Goudappagouda Police Patil