Allowed

Sri N C Ashok Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.A/547/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the High Court of Karnataka by special leave allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail, and ordered the appellant's release on bail upon execution of a bond and providing sureties, noting that election rivalry rather than caste hatred appeared to be the motivating factor for the alleged offence.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge declining anticipatory bail was set aside; the application was allowed, and the appellant was released on bail subject to conditions rega

Sri N C Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 547 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri N.C.Ashok Kumar S/o N.Chikkanarasimhappa, Aged about 32 years, R/o Narasapura Village, Chaldiganahalli Post, Taluka: Gowribidanur, District: Chikkaballapura-561208.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Karnataka Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gowribidanur Rural Police Station, Gowribidanur, District: Chikkaballapura Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

Harish, D/o Aswathappa, Aged 27 years, R/o Narasapura Village, Chaldiganahalli Post, Taluka: Gowribidanur, District: Chikkaballapura-561208.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1; R2 - Served)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) read with Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.54/2021 of Gowribidanur Rural Police Station, Chikkaballapura District for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 354A, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶18

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This is an appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant is accused No.1 in Cr. No. 54/2021 registered by the first respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323, 324, 354A, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 149 IPC.

¶21

¶22

Second respondent is served but there is no

¶23

representation on his behalf. Heard Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP, for respondent/State.

¶24

The trial court declined to grant anticipatory

¶25

bail to the appellant while granting anticipatory bail to accused 2 to 6. Hence this appeal.

¶26

Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for

¶27

the appellant, submits that if the FIR is read, what becomes clear is that some election rivalry might be

¶28

the cause for the alleged incident to take place and that it does not disclose any intention on the part of the accused to insult second respondent as he belongs to scheduled caste. He has produced the wound certificate to argue that the injury said to have been sustained by respondent No.2 and his mother is simple in nature. The charge sheet has already been

¶29

¶30

filed and there is nothing to show that the appellant

¶31

does not appear before the court during trial.

¶32

Government Pleader opposes granting of

¶33

bail by submitting that the FIR clearly discloses caste based attack.

¶34

On 6.3.2021 FIR was registered. Perusal of

¶35

the same clearly shows that the appellant grudged against the second respondent for the reason that the latter had not voted his father in the Gram Panchayat election and in this background the incident is said to

¶36

have taken place on 5.3.2021 at about 6.30 PM and then again at 7.30 PM. The FIR was registered on

¶37

6.3.2021 at 8.30 PM. There is a delay of 24 hours. Just because the first informant belongs to scheduled caste, the police have registered FIR against the appellant and other accused in regard to the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the

¶38

¶39

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The

¶40

wound certificate shows that the injuries are simple in nature. Since election rivalry appears to be the main reason for the alleged incident, caste based attack is not forthcoming and therefore section 18 is not a bar for granting anticipatory bail in a case of this type. The court below ought to have granted anticipatory bail to the appellant also and hence the following :

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, dated 17.3.2021 on application under section 438 Cr.P.C is set aside, the said application is allowed.

¶43

(iii) In the event of arrest of the appellant, he is ordered to be released on bail on

¶44

¶45

his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-

¶46

and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions : -

¶47

(a) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶48

(b) He shall regularly appear before the investigating officer whenever his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶49

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

ckl

Sri N C Ashok Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N C Ashok Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U Mohammad Ashraf Vs B H a Ravi

Nagaraja P.K Vs State of Karnataka

Ramakrishna @ Rama Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shamik Saha Vs the State of Karnataka