Partly allowed

Mahadeva P v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021CRL.A/1114/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the Sessions Court's rejection for five appellants but dismissed the appeal as not pressed by the sixth appellant. Bail was granted subject to bond execution and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to appellant Nos. 1 to 5 with conditions of posting bond, proving address, and not tampering with witnesses; appeal dismissed as not pressed for appellant No. 6.

Mahadeva P Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MAHADEVA P. S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. 31^ST WARD 10^TH CROSS, BASTHIPURA KOLLEGAL TOWN – 571 440.

¶9

KARIYEGOWDA

¶10

S/O. GULIKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶11

SOMASHEKHARA @ SOMA S/O. KARIYEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶12

MAHADEVASHETTY @ MAHADEVA S/O. VENKATASHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶13

LOKESHA S/O. VENKATASHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶14

NAGAMMA W/O. VENKATASHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶15

APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE R/O. HIRIKATI VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI

¶16

¶17

GUNDLUPET TALUK

¶18

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 109.

¶19

… APPELLANTS

¶20

[BY SRI PARAMESWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE]

¶21

AND

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶23

BY BEGUR POLICE STATION CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT – 571 109

¶24

REPRESENTED BY THE

¶25

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶26

MR. SIDDARAJU

¶27

S/O. LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS GUNDLUPET TALUK

¶28

CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT – 571 109.

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

[BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]

¶31

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND THEREBY PLEASED TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO.99/2020 OF BEGUR POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 AND 149 R/W SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This appeal is by accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No.99/2021 of Begur Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶37

2. Apprehending their arrest, the

¶38

accused/appellants approached the Sessions Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in Criminal Misc Nos.214/2021 and 218/2021 and the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 15.07.2021 rejected the said petitions. Hence, this appeal under Section 14A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.

¶39

The brief allegations are that on 13.06.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., while the complainant, working as a mestri under one Srinivas, owner of Sai Stone Crusher, was loading stones in the lorry, all the accused forming an unlawful assembly came to the spot and abused him in

¶40

¶41

filthy language insulting his caste and also assaulted him with hands and kicked him.

¶42

The incident is alleged to have been taken place on 13.06.2021 at about 4.00 p.m. The complaint has been lodged on 17.06.2021 at 10.30 a.m. The specific allegations of insulting and abusing the complainant taking the name of his caste is against accused No.1-Kumara and accused No.7-Nagamma. There are omnibus allegations made against other accused persons.

¶43

The learned counsel for appellants submits that in view of the dispute between the complainant and the accused persons wherein, the accused were objecting for the illegal mining being carried by the complainant and others, a false case has been foisted against all the accused implicating them in the case. He submits that accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and he will not press the appeal in respect of accused No.7/respondent No.6.

¶44

¶45

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader has

¶46

contended that in view of the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, the prayer sought by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail was rightly rejected by the trial Court. She contends, in the event of grant of any relief, the appellants may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and therefore, sought to reject the appeal.

¶47

As already observed, there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.2 to 6/appellant Nos.1 to 5 of insulting the complainant taking the name of his caste. It is alleged that the accused have picked up quarrel and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and assaulted with hands and legs. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the delay in lodging the complaint, it cannot be said at this stage that the ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST are attracted against appellant Nos.1 to 5. However, the prosecution has to establish its case in the course of trial. Hence, the following

¶48

¶49

ORDER

¶50

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

Appeal is dismissed as not pressed as against appellant No.6/respondent No.7.

¶52

Appeal is allowed in respect of appellant Nos.1 to 5/respondent Nos.2 to 6.

¶53

The impugned order is set aside to the above extent.

¶54

Appellant Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.2 to 6 shall be released in the event of their arrest in Crime No.99/2021 of Begur Police Station, subject to following conditions:

¶55

i) Appellant Nos.1 to 5/accused Nos.2 to 6 shall appear before the Investigation Officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and shall execute a bond each in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for likesum.

¶56

ii) They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶57

¶58

iii) They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform if there is change in their address.

¶59

iv) They shall not involve in any criminal activities.

¶60

v) They shall regularly appear before the trial Court till the conclusion of trial.

¶61

HB/- JUDGE

¶62

Sd/-

Mahadeva P v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeva P v. 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

Koushik Vs State of Karnataka

Anthony Harry Pinto Vs Dada Peer

State of Karnataka through Vs K J Murugesh

State of Karnataka Vs Rafi @ Kalu

Mr Shyam Sundar Vs Apple Nutra Pharmaceuticals

Shivamadana @ Shivamadanayaka Vs State by Pandavapura Police