Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2021CRL.P/100262/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out attracting the SC/ST Act barring anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the availability of appeal under Section 14A for bail rejections.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail is dismissed holding the section not maintainable.

Nagaraj S/O. Late S.Satyanarayan Vs the State of… — 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 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100262/2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

S. NAGARAJ, S/O. LATE S.SATYANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WATER PURIFIER SERVICE CENTER BUSINESS, R/O WARD NO.35, ESHWARA NAGAR, BEHIND VALMIKI KALYANAMANTAPA, AKSHVANI, HOSAPETE, BALLARI DIST.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. AMAREGOUDA M, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HADAGALI POLICE STATION, HADAGALI DIST BALLARI, R/ BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO PASS ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.07/2020, HADAGALI POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC 1860 AND U/S 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI.

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Though notice is served on the complainant on 06.02.2021 as

¶18

per the submission made by the HCGP, complainant is absent.

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.7/2020 registered by Hadagali police for the offences punishable under Sections, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act’ for brevity).

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, upon the complaint of one Vijay Kumar L.K. filed on 19.01.2020 alleging that, 15 years back he had love marriage with accused No.4, who belongs to Jangama caste and they are having three children. There was some misunderstanding between them and hence, there was quarrel in the matrimonial home. Therefore, accused No.4 and her father accused No.5 said to have filed a complaint against him

¶21

¶22

under the Domestic Violence Act in Crime No.441/2019 on 18.10.2019. That on 20.10.2019, he has obtained bail in the said case and went to the house of his father-in-law to see his wife and there they abused him in filthy language by taking his caste and insulted him. They also said to have threatened to do away with his life. In this background, on 19.01.2020 in the morning hours, when he was going to attend nature call, at that time, a car came and stopped in front of him, accused Nos. 1 to 3 got down from the car and accused No.1 abused him by taking his caste in filthy language and accused No. 2 - petitioner herein assaulted and torn his T-shirt and accused No.3 also assaulted him. He has also named accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the hospital and he has lodged the complaint with the police. After registering the complaint, the police said to have arrested accused Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and they are said to have been granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the police are making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner. Hence he has approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail in Crl.Misc.No.330/2020, which came to be rejected on 16.09.2020. Hence he approached this Court.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner and he has not abused the complainant as per the complaint. He has only torn the T-shirt and absolutely there is no prima facie material against him in order to reject anticipatory bail and to say there is bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Per contra, learned HCGP objected to the bail petition and contended that there is prima facie case made out against the petitioner/accused No.2. He has torn the T-shirt of the victim in the open space in public view and insulted him, which attracts section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. This petitioner accompanied with accused Nos.1 and 3 came in a group and assaulted the complainant and insulted him by taking his caste. There is prima facie case made out against the accused in view of filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, there is bar under Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

¶27

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the records, admittedly the police already filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 5. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 along with other coaccused have come and assaulted the complainant on 19.01.2020, who were already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are also arrested by the police and were released on bail by the Sessions Judge. This petitioner is accused No.2, who apprehending arrest prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

On perusal of the complaint, it goes to show that on 19.01.2020, this petitioner along with accused Nos. 1 and 3 came in a car and stopped after looking to the complainant, they came down and accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language by taking his caste and this petitioner also got down and he assaulted the complainant and torn the shirt in public view. It is nothing but insulting the SC/ST person which attracts Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act and abusing and insulting also attracts Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, apart from attracting Sections 504 and 323 of the IPC. There is prima facie case made out against the accused by

¶29

¶30

the complainant in his complaint and also the charge sheet filed by the police reveals there is material placed on record to show that this petitioner insulted the complainant, who is the member of SC/ST in the public view. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 159, when there is prima facie material placed on record to attract the provision under the SC/ST Act, the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and as per Section 14A of the Act, the same is appealable. This Court also in an identical reportable case in Jagadeesh & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Petition No.3055/2020 dated 06.08.2020, has elaborately considered the Act and held, when there is prima facie case and once the bail application is rejected by the Special Court or the trial Court, as per Section 14A(2) of the amended SC/ST (POA) Act, an appeal shall have to be filed before the High Court and the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the order on bail rejected by the trial Court is appealable one.

¶31

¶32

In the instant case, there is clear case made out by the complainant in his complaint and charge sheet to attract the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore, bar under Section 18A of the Act attracts and the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

gab

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka