Allowed

Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2021CRL.P/100061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail. The Court held that the facts did not constitute a prima facie case under the SC & ST Act to attract the statutory bar on bail. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including personal bond, surrender, and regular attendance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; accused released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.104/2020 subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and other conditions.

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100061/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . MAHESH, S/O. MADEV NAIK, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. ADUKULA, HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN CODE-581348

¶8

2 . MOHAN S/O. GANAPATI NAIK AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. ADUKULA, HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN CODE-581348

¶9

3 . VITHAL S/O. GANAPA NAIK AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. ADUKULA, HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN CODE-581348

¶10

4 . RAMACHANDRA S/O. MADEV NAIK AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. ADUKULA, HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN CODE-581348

¶11

.. PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS P.S.I., MANKI POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.580 011

¶16

.. RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR STATE SRI. T.R. PATIL, Adv.FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3, 4 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN MANKI P.S.CRIME NO.104/2020 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(G), 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) AND 3(1)(Z) OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UTTARA KANNADA AT KARWAR IN THE EVENT OF ARREST.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.02.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1

¶22

and 3 to 5 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity), for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.104/2020 registered by the Manki Police Station, Honnavara Circle, Uttara Kannada, for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and

¶23

¶24

3(1)(z) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC & ST Act’ for brevity) and under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶25

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the compliant of one Sri. Narayan Haslar along with two other persons, the respondent-police registered a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is alleged in the joint complaint that they belong to downtrodden SC/ST people and they are residing at Sy.No.72, Adukula, Honnavara taluk, Uttara Kannada, for more than 150 years since from their ancestors but they have not got mutated their names in the revenue records. However, they are paying the tax to the local authority. There is no case registered against them but the accused are willfully trying to evict them from that place and they used to abuse them in filthy language by taking their caste and were threatening them. Therefore, they filed a compliant for taking action against the accused and for protection. After registering the case, since the police are making hectic efforts

¶26

¶27

to arrest the petitioners, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, the petitioners have filed a compliant against the complainant and others on 12.06.2020 itself and they have categorically stated that the complainant and other relatives are threatening to file a compliant against them under the SC & ST Act and to keep them in jail. The police without registering the case called the complainants’ party where complainants’ party have undertaken to co-operate with the survey of the land with the help of the Surveyor. The Survey Department fixed the date for surveying the land on 27.10.2020 but two days prior to the survey of land, after service of notice, a complaint came to be filed by implicating them under the SC & ST Act. Absolutely there is no allegation made in the compliant to attract Section 3 of SC and ST Act nor to deny bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and to attract bar under Section 18A of the SC & ST Act. Further, learned counsel for the

¶29

¶30

petitioners also contended that the petitioners will not evict the complaint’s party without due process of law and they have cooperated with the Survey Department and the action taken by the public authority. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State orally objected to the bail petition and contended that the complainant appeared through their counsel and filed written statement and contended that there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 18 and 18-A of SC & ST Act. The accused persons were absconding and they are required for the purpose of investigation. There is no ground to grant anticipatory bail. If the petitioners are granted bail, the complainants and others would be put into immense hardship and humiliation. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The complainant appeared through counsel in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court under Section 15-A(5) of the SC & ST Act. Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Government Pleader and perused the records.

¶33

¶34

A perusal of the joint compliant filed by the complainant

¶35

and two other persons goes to show that they belong to downtrodden SC/ST caste and are residing in Sy.No.72 for more than 150 years right from their ancestors in the said area and there is no protection for them though they are paying tax to the local authority. Hence, the accused are trying to evict them in collusion with the panchayat. Though they have mentioned provisions of law under SC & ST Act for registering the case but they have not stated the actual words uttered by the accused persons to insult the complainant and their family members and the accused were trying to evict them from that place. On the other hand, the accused persons have filed a compliant against the complainant on 12.06.2020 whereas the present complaint filed by the complainant is on 25.10.2020. The documents produced by the petitioners show that the complainants were also threatening to implicate them in a special case and to put them in jail. The complainant and others were called to the police station and they have given a joint statement before the police that they will co-operate with the survey of the land by the authorities. Accordingly, a notice was sent by the Survey Authorities on 25.10.2020 and the date fixed for

¶36

¶37

survey was on 27.10.2020. Notice was served on the complainants’ party and immediately after service of notice, the complainants’ party and others filed the present complaint on 25.10.2020. However, the survey conducted by the Survey Department on 27.10.2020. The accused also submitted that they will not evict the complainant without due process of law that they will not disturb the possession of the house where the complainants are residing even in the encroached portion of land in Sy.No.72 of Manki Hobli, Honnavara taluk.

¶38

Considering these aspects and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ingredients that attracts Section 3 of SC & ST Act to show there is a prima facie case made out against the accused to reject the bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and also to attract bar to grant anticipatory bail under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC & ST Act. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail and there is no bar to grant anticipatory bail as per Section 18 and 18-A of the SC & ST Act, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

¶39

¶40

Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 1036.

¶41

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶42

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.104/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(z) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/trial Court.

¶44

ii. The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

iii. The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶46

¶47

iv. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶48

v. The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating officer. They shall mark their attendance on every Monday between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is later.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

kmv

Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balesh Basappa Jatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Korachara Pakkirappa Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Harish S/O. Subray Hegde

Chandrappa Rayappa Itagi Vs the State by Marihal of Police

Nagaraj S/O. Late S.Satyanarayan Vs the State of Karnataka through