Allowed

Hanumantha S/O Pakkirappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2021CRL.P/101636/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to seven petitioners in a case under the SC & ST Act and IPC. The court held that since there was no prima facie case to attract the offence of intentional insult under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, the bail bar under Section 18A did not apply. Bail was allowed subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, surrender within 15 days, no tampering with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Hanumantha S/O Pakkirappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101636/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HANUMANTHA S/O PAKKIRAPPA AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ, BALLARI DIST-583101

¶8

SMT. NINGAMMA @ CHAKALI SIDDALINGAMMA W/O HANUMANTHA OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101.

¶9

MOULA S/O JADE SAB OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101.

¶10

P HONNURA SAB S/O P CEMENT JADE SAB OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101.

¶11

PAULAKURTHI JADESHA REDDAY S/O P PALAKSHA REDDY

¶12

¶13

OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101.

¶14

SMT MALLAMMA W/O OBALESH OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101.

¶15

HULUGAPPA S/O BARIKARA NAGAPPA OCC. LABOURER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101.

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH KURUGOD PS), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD 580011

¶20

SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA W/O B C MARUTHI OCC. LABOURER, R/O. 7^TH WARD, INDIRA NAGAR, EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, KAMPLI TQ. BALLARI DIST. 583101

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B. C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7 IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.151/2020 REGISTERED IN KURUGOD POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 R/W. 149 OF IPC, 1860 AND U/S. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),3(2)(v-a) OF SC & ST ACT, 1989.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.151/2020 registered by the Kurugod Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 R/w. 149 of the IPC, 1860 and U/s. 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (v-a) of SC & ST Act, 1989.

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of one Smt. Meenakshamma, the police registered a case against 14 accused persons. It is alleged by her that, she was residing in the 7^th ward of Yammiganur village and there were 100-150 families residing in the said place by putting huts in the Porampoku land. It is alleged that, the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly said to have came in front of her hut and picked up quarrel and abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of her caste and intentionally insulted her. After registering the case, the police are trying to arrest the petitioners. Hence

¶29

¶30

apprehending arrest, they approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence they are before this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai has strenuously contended that there is no prima facie case made out against the accused persons in order attract the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act in order to show there is bar for grant of bail under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act. Absolutely there are no ingredients to show the alleged offence is committed by the accused persons. There is also a counter case lodged by the petitioners which is registered by the police in Crime No.152/2020 for the similar offences punishable under the SC/ST Act. The trial Court granted bail to some of the accused for the similar offences. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions. Hence he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP objected to the bail petition and contended that there is prima facie case against the accused/petitioners for attracting Section 3 of the SC/ST Act and there is bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act for granting bail

¶33

¶34

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Sri. Jynanayya Swami also objected to the bail petition, however admitted that there are case and counter cases registered against both the groups. Hence they prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶35

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the records, it shows that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 29.10.2020 and the complaint came to be filed on 04.11.2020. The counter case is also registered in Crime No.152/2020 on 05.11.2020. The police invoked the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. In both the cases, some of the persons are belonging to SC/ST community. Upon reading the FIR, there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners to show that they have intentionally insulted the complainant’s party in order to attract Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. There is no prima facie case made out under the SC/ST act. Hence there is no bar under Section 18A of the SC & ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others

¶36

¶37

reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 159 . This Court also held in catena of cases that, when there is no prima facie case made out under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, there is no bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶38

Considering facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners also. If the petitioners are granted bail by imposing stringent conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. Hence I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petition is allowed . The respondent-police is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No 151/2020 of Kurugod Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶42

¶43

ii. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

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

¶45

iv. The petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶46

v. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶47

vi. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for, for the purpose of investigation and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

gab

Hanumantha S/O Pakkirappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantha S/O Pakkirappa 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

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde Vs Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Naik S/O Tulaja Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bande Navaz Rashmi S/O Vajirsab Rashmi Vs the State of Karnataka