Allowed

Mr. K. S. Mahesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2022CRL.A/1274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an appeal against the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. relating to offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, observing that the lower court erred in applying Section 18 of the Act absent evidence of caste-based insult in the initial police report.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing anticipatory bail was set aside; anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant, conditioned upon a bond of Rs. 50,000, two sureties, cooperation with the investigation,

Mr. K. S. Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1274 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. K S Mahesh S/o Late K R Shantharaju Aged 45 years R/at Kodlipete Main Road Kodlipete Town, Somwarpet Taluk Kodagu District-571231.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Manjunath S., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka By Shanivarasanthe Police Station Through the Public Prosecutor.

¶12

B.N. Anil Kumar

¶13

S/o Nataraj Aged about 35 years R/at Erapare, Banavara Village Somwarpet Taluk Kodagu District-571231.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1; R2 - served)

¶16

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 praying to set aside the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in Crl. Misc. No.171/2022 produced at Annexure-A, etc.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard Sri. Manjunath S., learned counsel for the appellant and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 has been served with notice , but he has not appeared before the court.

¶22

This appeal is filed under section 14(A)(2)

¶23

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, [‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short] challenging the order dated 4.7.2022 in Crl.Misc.171/2022 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to Crime No.45/2022, registered

¶24

by Shanivarasanthe Police Station for the offence

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

under section 324, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶27

Since the said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred.

¶28

FIR came to be registered at the instance of second respondent in relation to incident said to have taken place on 7.6.2022 at about 8.00 p.m. The second respondent reported to the police that when he came near the house of his sister-in-law, suddenly a person unknown to him came and hit on his head with a helmet and then with a club on both shoulders, chest and kicked on his testicles. By that time, Prajwal, the nephew of second respondent came to that place and seeing him, the person who attacked him left that place. He came to know the name of that person from Prajwal. He gave a report to the police initially on 8.6.2022. In this report he did not mention anything about

¶29

:: 4 ::

¶30

his caste and insultation by the appellant in the name of caste. But on 15.6.2022, the second respondent made one more report to the police stating that on 7.6.2022, he was insulted in the name of caste besides being assaulted. For this reason, the police included the offence punishable under SC/ST(POA) Act.

¶31

If the impugned order is read, it may be stated that the court below has dismissed the application just based on an allegation with regard to insulting the second respondent in the name of caste without examining whether the incident in the background of caste factor had really taken place or not. The trial court has failed to notice that in the first report dated 8.6.2022, the second respondent mentioned nothing about his caste and his insultation in the name of caste. If on 15.6.2022, he would give a further complaint mentioning the name of his caste, it appears that

¶32

:: 5 ::

¶33

it was an improvement. So if two complaints are read together, certainly it can be said that the second complaint dated 15.6.2022 was registered merely for the reason that second respondent belongs to scheduled caste. The police might have included the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act without applying mind whether the incident might have taken place on caste background or not. The trial court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

¶34

Prithviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others , but has failed to apply the principle laid down in it. In a circumstance made out in this case, section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable. The injuries, as per the wound certificate produced by the Government Pleader, suffered by the second respondent are simple in nature. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is available for investigation, anticipatory bail

¶35

:: 6 ::

¶36

could have been grated. Therefore this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Appeal is allowed.

¶39

The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri dated 4.07.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.171/2022 is set aside.

¶40

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.45/2022, he shall be released on bail subject to him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to the following conditions:-

¶41

(i) He shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

¶42