Allowed

Srinivasamurthy H v. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2022CRL.A/1388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the rejection of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The High Court found no prima facie evidence of caste-based discrimination or assault due to caste, noting the complainant was a hearsay witness and foul play involved. The court set aside the trial court's order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.08.2021 is set aside. The appellant's petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed with conditions to execute a bond and appear before the I.O.

Srinivasamurthy H v Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.1388/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRINIVASAMURTHY H V S/O LATE VENKATARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT GUDAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE ASHRAMA POST MYSURU TALUK WORKING AS: PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KURIHUNDI GRAMA PANCHAYAT NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 301 ... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.H.R.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA NANJANAGUDU RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPL.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU

¶13

GOWRI W/O LATE RANJA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KALALE VILLAGE NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 301 ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

CRL.A.No.1388/2021

¶15

¶16

(BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2021 IN CRL.MISC. NO.1541/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERNECE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail petition, accused No.1 in Crime No.182/2021 of Nanjangudu Rural police station has preferred the above appeal.

¶21

On 04.08.2021 the appellant was working as Panchayath Development Officer at Kalale Grama panchayath on deputation. One scavenger by name Ranga committed suicide in the Panchayath office on 04.08.2021 at 3.30 p.m. His wife Smt. Gowri filed complaint before Nanjangudu Rural police station against the appellant and accused No.2 i.e. The Executive Officer of Taluka panchayath Nanjangud alleging that on 04.08.2021 at

¶22

CRL.A.No.1388/2021

¶23

¶24

10.30 a.m. when Ranga and other scavengers demanded their wages, the appellant manhandled and abused him with reference to his caste and assaulted him. She alleged that being humiliated by that Ranga committed suicide.

¶25

On such complaint, the respondent police have registered Crime No.182/2021 against the appellant and accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶26

The appellant and accused No.2 approached the VI Additional District & Special Judge at Mysuru in Crl. Misc. No.1541/2021 seeking anticipatory bail. The trial Court granted anticipatory bail to accused No.2 and rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that there are no specific allegations of caste discrimination against accused No.2 and there are such allegations against the appellant. The trial Court further held that in

¶27

CRL.A.No.1388/2021

¶28

¶29

the light of such allegations Section 18A of the Act bars granting of anticipatory bail.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was posted to Kalale Grama panchayath office by deputation order dated 13.07.2021 and the appellant did not know the caste of Ranga or wages being due to him. He further submits that there are no materials to show that the appellant has committed the offence alleged against him.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits the records of investigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s Union of India & Others¹ and Rohan Jalal V/s State of Kerala² and another held that Section 18 and 18A of the Act will not apply if no prima facie case of offences under the Act is made out. It was further held that excluding access to bail as a remedy, impinges upon human liberty.

¶32

1 (2020) 4 SCC 727

¶33

2 2021(1) SCC 733

¶34

CRL.A.No.1388/2021

¶35

¶36

In the light of said judgments, this Court has to examine whether there is a prima facie case attracting the provision of the Act. The complaint itself indicates that the complainant was not an eyewitness and she is only a hearsay witness.

¶37

The alleged incident of assault took place at 10.30 a.m. and the victim committed suicide at 3.30 p.m. Only in the later part of the complaint, the complainant states that she came to know through the neighbours that the appellant abused Ranga with reference to the caste.

¶38

The FSL report shows that the victim had consumed alcohol at the time of his death. Under such circumstances, there is no prima facie material to show that the alleged incident was due to caste based discrimination. The trial Court was not justified in invoking Section 18 and 18A of the Act. Therefore the appeal is allowed.

¶39

The impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 1541/2021 is set aside.

¶40

CRL.A.No.1388/2021

¶41

¶42

The appellant’s petition under Section 438 Cr.PC is allowed.

¶43

If the appellant is arrested in Crime No.182/2021 of Nanjangudu police, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶44

(i) He shall appear before the I.O within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶45

(ii) The appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O/trial Court;

¶46

(iii) He shall appear before the I.O/Court as and when required for investigation/trial;

¶47

(iv) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶48

PKN

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

Srinivasamurthy H v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasamurthy H v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K S Narayan Since Dead by His Lr'S Smt. Prabhamani Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Fyroz Pasha Vs State by Tumkuru Town Police

Nagesh S/O Late B S Raju Vs the State by Police Inspector

Jagadish Vs Girigowda. a. M.

Byrijayraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Siddarath Vs State by