Allowed

Basappa v. the State by K R Pet Town Police

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2022CRL.A/173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against bail rejection in offences under SC/ST (PoA) Act and IPC, set aside impugned order, and granted bail for audience purpose with personal bond and surety conditions, noting victim discharged and injuries simple.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Bail granted with personal bond of Rs 50000 and one surety in like amount to satisfy trial Court. Appearance as required for trial.

Basappa Vs the State by K R Pet Town Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.A.No.173/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.173/2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT BALLEKERE VILLAGE SHEELANERE HOBLI K.R.PETE TALUK MANDYA – 577 133 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.C.N.RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE BY K.R.PET TOWN POLICE MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶12

CHALUVARAJU S/O BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT BALLEKERE VILLAGE SHEELANERE HOBLI K.R.PETE TALUK MANDYA – 577 133 …RESPONDENTS

¶13

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

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC & ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2022 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN CRIME NO.6/2022 OF K.R.PET

¶15

Crl.A.No.173/2022

¶16

¶17

TOWN POLICE, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1) (w)(I)(II) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Learned HCGP submits report of the Investigating Officer regarding service of notice on respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 served and absent.

¶21

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail

¶22

application, the accused in Crime No.6/2022 of K.R.Pet Town police station has preferred the above appeal.

¶23

Crime No.6/2022 was registered against the appellant (Accused No.1) and his wife (Accused No.2) for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506, 354B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 on the basis of the complaint of respondent No.2.

¶24

Crl.A.No.173/2022

¶25

¶26

It is alleged that on 09.01.2022 at 12.00 noon when respondent No.2 and his wife were proceeding near shop of the appellant in Ballekere Village, K.R.Pet Taluk, the appellant and his wife abused respondent No.2 and his wife with reference to their caste objecting they using the road street situated in front of the shop of the appellant. It is further alleged that the appellant and his wife assaulted respondent No.2 by their hands and spade and caused her grievous injuries. It is alleged that the appellant tried to disrobe the wife of respondent No.2 and attempted to outrage her modesty.

¶27

The appellant was arrested on 09.01.2022.

¶28

The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the bail application on the ground that the injured victim is still taking treatment in the hospital and if bail is granted, there is likelihood of disturbance in the village.

¶29

Subsequent to the impugned order, the trial Court itself has granted anticipatory bail to the wife of the appellant. The copy of the said order is submitted for perusal of this Court. The said order indicates that with

¶30

Crl.A.No.173/2022

¶31

¶32

regard to the same incident on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant, case in Crime No.9/2022 was registered against respondent No.2 party. The said order further indicates that wife of respondent No.2 was discharged from the hospital on 19.01.2022.

¶33

Learned HCGP submitted the injury certificate by both the complainant and his wife. According to the said record, the injury suffered by the complainant and his wife are simple in nature.

¶34

The punishment prescribed for the major offence is imprisonment up to seven years. The appellant was remanded to judicial custody on the ground that his detention is not required for further investigation. Under the circumstances, it is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Therefore the appeal is allowed.

¶35

The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellant is granted bail in Crime No.6/2022 of K.R.Pet Town police station subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) Appellant shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty

¶37

Crl.A.No.173/2022

¶38

¶39

Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶40