Allowed

S R Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021CRL.P/109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Karnataka High Court allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused No.4. The Court held that since his name was absent from the FIR and no prima facie material existed against him specifically, the bar under provisions of the SC/ST Act did not apply, ruling it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bond, appearing within 15 days, not leaving jurisdiction, and not tampering with witnesses.

S R Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.109/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S.R.Praveen Kumar S/o.Late Raghurama Shetty Aged about 36 years R/at. No.500/96 East End Main Road 9^th Block, Jayanagar Bengaluru-560 064 .. Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Harish Kumar D., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka By SHO, Hebbagodi Police Station Bengaluru, Rep.by Government Pleader High Court Building Bengaluru City-560 001

¶12

Sri D.Muniyappa S/o. Late Dekappa Aged about 74 years R/at. Bommasandra Village Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bengaluru Rural District-562 106

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in CR.No.392/2019 of Hebbagodi P.S., Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 114, 427, 447, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Section 3CL(2) and (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶17

This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.392/2019 registered by Hebbagodi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (‘Act’ for short) and Sections 427, 149, 506, 143, 447 of IPC.

¶20

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.4 and the learned HCGP for

¶21

¶22

respondent No.1-State. Though respondent No.2-

¶23

complainant is served, he remained unrepresented.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by Muniyappa, police registered a case against the petitioner and other accused persons. It is alleged by the complainant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.211, measuring 34 guntas, situated at Bommasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk and after obtaining necessary permission from the Tahsildar, Anekal, he has constructed a Farm house and construction was completed on 30.10.2019. On 2.11.2019, at about 10.15 p.m., accused No.1 along with other accused persons came in an autorickshaw and demolished the Farm house and compound wall thereby caused loss of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant.

¶25

After registering the case, police tried to arrest the accused persons and hence they approached the Sessions Court by filing a petition for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Thereafter, they approached this

¶26

¶27

Court by filing Criminal Petition No.8428/2019 for grant of anticipatory bail and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by allowing the said petition on 30.1.2020 has granted anticipatory bail to them. While filing the charge sheet, this petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. When the police tried to arrest him, he has approached the IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for grant of anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

¶29

that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and his name has been falsely implicated. His name is not found in FIR and only after filing of the charge sheet, he has been arrayed as accused No.4. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences will not attract the provisions under the Act. There are no averments made in the complaint as against this petitioner. He has also contended that co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate

¶30

¶31

Bench of this Court in WP.No.8428/2019, disposed of on 30.1.2020 and therefore on the ground of parity he has prayed for allowing the petition.

¶32

Per contra , the learned HCGP has objected the bail petition contending that there is prima facie material as against this petitioner for having committed the offences under the Act. There is a clear bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of the case and his presence is required for custodial interrogation and therefore she prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶33

On hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, admittedly the petitioner’s name is not found in FIR and his name has been included as accused No.4 after filing of the charge sheet. There is a civil dispute pending between the accused persons and the complainant in respect of the property held by the complainant. However, looking to the complaint, absolutely there is no averment

¶34

¶35

made against the accused persons especially this petitioner that either he has abused the complainant or trespassed into the property and committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution. There is no prima facie material made out as against the present petitioner in order to say that there is a bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in 2020 SCC Online 159 . When there is absolutely no material placed on record to show that this petitioner has committed the alleged offices, on the ground of parity, this petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The charge sheet is already filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶36

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶37

The respondent-Police are directed to release the petitioner-accused No.4, namely S.R.Praveen Kumar, on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.392/2019

¶38

¶39

registered by Hebbagodi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 427, 149, 506, 143, 447 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶40

i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court.

¶41