Allowed

Rajesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.A/1717/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the trial court order rejecting anticipatory bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that since the complaint did not establish a prima facie case of caste-based discrimination, the Section 18 bar did not apply, warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant upon production of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties, subject to specified conditions of appearing before IO and Trial Court.

Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Crl.A.No.1717/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1717 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Rajesh S/o. Deva Reddy Aged about 23 years R/at Kariyappanahalli Village, Sadali Hobli, Sidlaghatt Taluk Chikkaballapur District

¶10

Karnataka - 563 125. …Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. Jagadeesha B.N., Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State of Karnataka by Dibburahalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Building Bangalore - 560 001.

¶14

Sri. Thimmappa, S/o. Late Channarayappa, Aged 40 years,

¶15

R/at Hale Ganjigunte,

¶16

Crl.A.No.1717/2021 2

¶17

Basetihalli Hobli, Shdlaghatt Tq Chikballapura Dist. Karnataka - 563 125.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1; Respondent No.2 - served and un-represented)

¶20

¶21

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) R/W 438 of the Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 10-11-2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Cr.Misc.No.1150/2021 and consequently, enlarge the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.146/2021 filed by the Dibburahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Sections 143, 147,323, 353, 504, 506, 149 of IPC.

¶22

This Criminal Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court through video conference delivered the following:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for anticipatory bail, the appellant (accused No.1) in Crime No.146/2021 of Dibburahalli Police Station, has preferred the above appeal.

¶26

Crl.A.No.1717/2021 3

¶27

Crime No.146/2021 was registered against the appellant and three other named accused and other unnamed accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the IPC') and Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, on the basis of the complaint of Thimmappa, a KSRTC conductor.

¶28

It is alleged that, on 12-10-2021, at 6:50 p.m., near Turukachnahalli Gate, Sidlagatta Taluk, the appellant and other accused entered the Bus bearing No.KA-40/F-698, in which the complainant and Driver by name Shankarappa were on duty. It is further alleged that, to take revenge for the complainant objecting the appellant's sister travelling on the basis of bus pass which did not pertain to that route, the appellant fisted him on his head and neck and the other accused assaulted him causing injuries. It is further alleged that when the driver came to his rescue, they assaulted him

¶29

Crl.A.No.1717/2021

¶30

¶31

also. The other allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant with reference to his caste.

¶32

Apprehending his arrest in the said case, the appellant filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Trial Court. That came to be rejected by the impugned order on the ground that, Section 18 of SC/ST(POA) Act, bars grant of anticipatory bail.

¶33

It is submitted that, accused Nos.3 and 4 are extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by the trial court. Accused No.2 is granted regular bail. According to the complaint itself, the accused persons and complainant were confronted for the first time. Therefore, the chance of the accused No.1 (appellant) knowing the caste of the complainant becomes doubtful.

¶34

The allegation is that the assault was the outcome of the complainant's loyalty to his duty. It does not say that he was targeted because of his caste. Therefore,

¶35

Crl.A.No.1717/2021

¶36

¶37

prima facie , there is no ground to believe that the incident was the outcome of caste based discrimination.

¶38

So far as the other offences, the major offence is the one punishable under Section 353 of the Cr.P.C. which carries imprisonment upto two years. There are no other criminal antecedents of the appellant. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in holding that prima facie , Section 18 and 18 A(i) of the SC/ST (POA) Act shall apply.

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727 , has held at paragraph 11, that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. The present case is covered by the said judgment.

¶40

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail with suitable conditions.

¶41

Crl.A.No.1717/2021

¶42

¶43

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10-11-2021 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura in Crl.Misc.No.1150/2021 is hereby set aside.

¶44

If the appellant is arrested in Crime No.146/2021 of Dibburahalli Police Station, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶45

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶46

(ii) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and furnish two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶47

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Trial Court as and when required for the purpose of investigation/trial.

¶48

Crl.A.No.1717/2021

¶49

¶50

(iv) He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on the first Sunday of each month, till the completion of investigation.

¶51

(v) He shall not tamper the witnesses in any manner and shall not involve in other criminal

¶52

activities.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

BMV*

Rajesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K S Naveena Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sumitra L Vs Smt C Manjula

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T N Thimmarajachar Vs Sri K R Sathyanarayana

Raghavendra @ Kumara @ Kothambarikumara Vs State of Karnataka