Allowed

Nagaraja P.K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021CRL.A/590/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against an order denying anticipatory bail in an SC/ST (POA) Act case. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the denial, and granted anticipatory bail pending investigation due to well-founded apprehension and the public official status of the appellants.

What did the court decide?

The order denying anticipatory bail was set aside; the application for anticipatory bail was allowed with a bond of Rs. 50,000 and conditions.

Nagaraja P.K Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 590 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Nagaraja P.K., S/o. Late P.V.Krishnappa, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Joint Director (Training) State Training and Research Centre Govt. ITI Campus, Malavalli at & Post, Mandya District. R/at No.825/1, 4^th Main, 3^rd Cross, Srinivasanagara II Stage, Bengaluru-560050.

¶9

K.C.Ravishankar, S/o Late K.Chowdappa, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Principal Grade-I, Govt. Training Institute Malavalli at & Post, Mandya District, R/at No.161, Police Layout, 3^rd Stage, Mysore-570011.

¶10

Ramachandrappa K.R., S/o Late Ramanna, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Principal (Incharge Govt. ITI) Opp. KSRTC Bus Depot, At & Post Kadur,

¶11

¶12

Chikkamagaluru District, R/at No.4242/5, Kalagundi, Venkateshwaranagara, Kadur at & Post, Chikkamagaluru District-577548.

¶13

Sri Rajesh N., S/o Sri Nagaraja Shetty, Aged about 45 years Occ: Junior Training Officer, Govt. ITI, Varuna, Kempegowdana Hundi, Varakodu Post, Mysuru-570010.

¶14

…Appellants

¶15

(By Sri L.S.Chikkanagowdar, Advocate)

¶16

AND

¶17

State of Karnataka Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadur Police Station, Kadur Circle, Chikkamagaluru Sub-Division & District-577548.

¶18

Sri Srinivasa Murthy, S/o Not known, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Principal Grade II Govt. ITI College, Kunigal Road, Gangadeeshwara Rice Mill Compound, Tumakuru at, Post & District-572101. R/at No.G-1, B Block, Innovative Flora, Cox Town, Bengaluru-560005.

¶19

…Respondents

¶20

(By Sri P.Thejesh, HCGP for R1; Sri B.C.Venkatesh, Advocate for R2)

¶21

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order Annexure-

¶22

¶23

B dated 04.03.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.126/2021 by the Learned I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru and etc.,

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants,

¶27

counsel for respondent No.2 and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶28

This appeal is filed under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the order passed by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Misc. No. 126/2021 denying anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶29

The first respondent police registered an FIR

¶30

against the appellants in Cr. No. 28/2021 in relation to offences punishable under sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q) of

¶31

¶32

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of the second respondent. The second respondent made a report to the police stating that the appellants made false allegations against him in connection with purchase of power tools and raw materials for the use of the institution and made a complaint to the Director of Training and Employment Department. Second respondent is of the opinion that since he is a Scheduled Tribe, the appellants targeted him by making false allegations though he was not responsible for purchase of power tools and raw materials.

¶33

From the FIR itself it can be made out that

¶34

the registration of FIR against the appellants was some alleged misappropriation of money in relation to purchase of power tools and raw materials. The second respondent is of the opinion that the fourth

¶35

¶36

appellant was responsible for those purchases and that he was not in any way connected with those purchases. Anyway departmental enquiry has been initiated. But at this stage it is difficult to make out that the appellants resorted to making complaint to the Director of their department for the purpose of targeting in the background of his caste. Whether the allegations being enquired into in the departmental enquiry are true or false, cannot be said till enquiry is completed. Therefore depending on the result of the enquiry, the second respondent could have decided to lodge a complaint against the appellants. Before the completion of enquiry, he rushed to the police to lodge an FIR. In this view, the apprehension expressed by the appellants of being arrested is well founded. All the appellants are government officials and they can be secured for the purpose of investigation at any time. Therefore there is no impediment for granting

¶37

¶38

anticipatory bail. Section 18 of the Act does not come

¶39

in the way of granting anticipatory bail. In this view

¶40

of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following : -

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order passed by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dated 4.3.2021 in Crl. Misc. No. 126/2021 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 appellants, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellants are

¶44

¶45

also subjected to the following

¶46

conditions : -

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

ckl

Nagaraja P.K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja P.K 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

Lingareddy Bala Hanumantha Vs State by

Sri Harish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Graduates Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Sri Kottada Malleshappa

Byranna B @ Byraiah Vs Manjulla K M

U Mohammad Ashraf Vs B H a Ravi

Ramakrishna @ Rama Vs State of Karnataka