Partly allowed

Smt Lakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2020CRL.P/2633/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners facing charges under IPC and SC/ST Act for alleged involvement in a land dispute. The court found no prima facie case attracting the mandatory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act for these petitioners but dismissed the plea for the petitioner directly involved in the injuries.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 1, 3, and 4 subject to bond execution, appearance every alternate day, and cooperation with investigation; relief denied to petitioner 2.

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2633/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt.Lakshmamma, W/o P.N.Nagaraj, Aged 50 years,

¶8

Sri.P.N.Nagaraj S/o Late Narasimhappa, Aged about 60 years,

¶9

Sri.Girisha S/o P.N.Nagaraja, Aged about 24 years,

¶10

Sri.Naveena S/o P.N.Nagaraja, Aged about 23 years,

¶11

All are residing at, Bisuvanahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk,

¶12

Bengaluru Rural District – 561203.

¶13

…Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri.Thyagaraja B, Advocate)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

The State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Office of the Advocate General, Vidhana Veedhi, Bengaluru.

¶18

The State by Inspector of Police, Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Doddaballapura.

¶19

…Respondents

¶20

(By Sri. Showri H.R., HCGP)

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.147/2020 of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

¶22

This Criminal Petition coming on for Order this day, the Court made the following through video conference:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C

¶25

seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.147/2020

¶26

registered by the respondent – police for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the

¶27

¶28

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’).

¶29

The case of the complainant was that on 01.05.2020 at about 4.15 p.m., the petitioners formed an unlawful group and went near the house of the complainant and demanded money along with interest which resulted in a quarrel between the complainant and the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioner No.2 caught hold of the husband of the complainant and injured him with a brick and also castigated the complainant and abused the complainant and her husband by referring to their caste. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a crime and took up investigation.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that there was a transaction between the petitioners and the complainant in respect of the agricultural land that was owned by the complainant and that the

¶31

¶32

complainant had handed over possession of the land but had unlawfully entered the land to harvest jackfruit from the tree. He contended that the complaint was designed to strong-arm the petitioners to settle the dispute relating to land.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioners would also contend that petitioner No.3 is employed with Government of Karnataka in the Department of Agriculture and petitioner No.4 is studying at

¶34

Sheshadripuram Law College, Bengaluru. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the statement of the complainant before the police does not prima-facie case indicate the involvement of the petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not attracted. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted to the facts of the case. He would also contend that even if the complaint averments are

¶35

¶36

taken into account, the alleged offence did not occur in public and therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the Act is not applicable.

¶37

Per contra, the learned HCGP would submit

¶38

that the statement of complaint before the police definitely indicates involvement of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

I have considered the FIR and the other

¶40

documents placed on record.

¶41

The extract of the complaint found in the FIR discloses that there was a financial transaction between

¶42

the complainant and the petitioners in respect of which there was a quarrel on 01.05.2020. The complainant

¶43

¶44

had stated that petitioner No.2 injured the husband of the complainant with a brick and abused them by taking their caste. There is no overt act attributed to the petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 in so far as the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The other offences alleged are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 have made out a prima-facie case, it is just and necessary that petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 be granted anticipatory bail. However, the petition filed by the petitioner No.2 is rejected. Hence, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part . Therefore, the following;

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 are granted anticipatory bail subject to the Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 surrendering themselves before the investigating officer within seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and executing a personal

¶47

¶48

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶49

ii. The Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer two days in a week on Monday and Friday between 10.30 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until conclusion of investigation or 90 days whichever is earlier.

¶50

iii. The Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in concluding the investigation.

¶51

iv. The Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶52

v. The Petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission until conclusion of the investigation.

¶53

Sd/- JUDGE

¶54

KA/NBM

Smt Lakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmamma 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

A Narayana S/O Annu Shettigara Vs Gulabi v Rai (Since Dead)

Mr Abrar Yusuf Pandrowala Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs the State

K Laxmana Shetty Vs Sri S Sachin

Doddayya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Akkayamma Vs Lakshmi