Allowed

Shri.M.G.Ramesh S/O Shri. M. Govindreddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2020CRL.P/101082/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with alleged caste-based atrocities. The Court noted a contradiction in the complainant's further statement which denied the accusations of caste abuse and threats made in the initial FIR. Finding no prima-facie case based on this statement, the Court allowed the petition granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail; directed to appear before court within 15 days, execute a bond of Rs.50,000/- each with sureties, cooperate with investigation, attend police station every 15 da

Shri.M.G.Ramesh S/O Shri. M. Govindreddy Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO. 101082 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI.M.G.RAMESH S/O SHRI. M. GOVINDREDDY AGE: 58 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: #AG07, PAVANI PARKWEST APARTMENTS, INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066, ALSO RESIDENT OF DAVANAGERE, TQ & DIST: DAVANAGERE-577701.

¶8

SHRI.K. J. SHIVARAMA REDDY S/O SHRI.K. JAYARAMA REDDY, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DAVANAGERE, NOW AT R/O.C/O TANUJA, DR.SUDARSHAN NAIDU STREET, HOUSE NO.34, RADIO PARK, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583102.

¶9

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUDATHINI POLICE STATION, BALLARI,

¶12

¶13

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT) (SRI.S.S.HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.34/2020 OF KUDATINI POLICE STATION, BALLARI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVETION OF ATROCITIES) ACT AS AMENDED BY THE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE OF 2014 THEY BE DIRECTED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.34/2020 of Kuduthini Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled

¶20

¶21

Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶23

It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint dated 10.03.2020 that he is working as coolie in the agricultural land belonging to one Gopi Reddy and Harish Reddy, since 20 years. On 08.03.2020 at about 2.25 pm when he was working in the said land, the petitioners namely accused Nos.1 and 2 picked-up quarrel with him questioning him as to why he is working in their land. Both the accused abused him in filthy language naming his caste and threatened him with dire consequences.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has given his further statement stating that the petitioners have not abused him by

¶25

¶26

insulting his caste and they have not threatened and given life threat to him. He submits that the allegations made in the FIR are false which is evident from the further statement of the complainant. The allegations are made at the instance of Gopi Reddy and therefore, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶27

I have perused the complaint averments as well as the further statement of the complainant. In the further statement, the complainant has stated that the accused-petitioners have not abused him and not insulted him by taking the name of his caste etc. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has not disputed the said statement. Hence, at this stage it can not be said that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences alleged against them in FIR.

¶28

Appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the further statement given by the complainant,

¶29

¶30

I am of the view that there is no impediment to allow the

¶31

petition. Hence, the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

a) Petition is allowed.

¶34

b) In the event of arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.34/2020 of Kuduthini Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i) The petitioners shall appear before the Jurisdictional Court within a period of 15 days from today and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶36

ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶37

iii) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police station once in 15 days till the completion of the investigation.

¶38

¶39

iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶40

v) The petitioners shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶41

I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and

¶42

the same is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

lad

Shri.M.G.Ramesh S/O Shri. M. Govindreddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.M.G.Ramesh S/O Shri. M. Govindreddy 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

Neelappa S/O. Dyamappa Khandekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Neelappa S/O Hanumantappa Sunagar Vs the State by Circle Police Inspector

Kiran S/O Bangareppa Angadi Vs State of Karnataka

Anant S/O. Mahadev Gouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Raju @ Jogi S/O Mallappa Jiddimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O Basappa Kalabhavi Vs the State of Karnataka