Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.A/1942/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the trial court's rejection of an anticipatory bail application. Relying on Prathvi Raj Chauhan, the court held that since the charge sheet did not establish a prima facie case under the SC/ST (POA) Act against the appellant, the statutory bar did not apply. Appeals are allowed; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; order rejecting application set aside; appellant to appear within 10 days, execute bond, and not tamper with witnesses.

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

¶1

¶2

Crl.A.No.1942/2021

¶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.1942 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Vijay Kumar S/O M.P.Raju Aged About 45 Years R/At T.Narasipura Road Santhemarahalli Chamarajanagar - 571 115

¶10

…Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. H.S.Chandramouli, Sr.Counsel for Smt.Keerthana Nagaraj, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State Of Karnataka Rep. By the Police of Santemaralli Police Station Chamarajanagar - 571 313 Rep. By the State Public Prosecutor High Court Of Karnataka Bengaluru - 560 001.

¶14

Sri Shivaswamy N S/O Nanjundaiah Aged About 41 Years

¶15

¶16

R/At Honnuru Village Yelanduru Taluk Chamarajanagar - 571 313

¶17

…Respondents

¶18

(By Sri. Shankar H.S., HCGP For R1 Respondent No.2 - served and un-represented)

¶19

¶20

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 21.10.2021 in crl.misc.no.339/2021 and consequently enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Spl.C.No.208/2021 in Cr.No.42/2021 of Santemaralli Police Station, Chamarajanagar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar.

¶21

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

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for anticipatory bail, accused No.3 in Crime No.42/2021 of Santemaralli Police Station has preferred the above appeal.

¶25

Crime No.42/2021 was initially registered against seven accused persons. The father of the appellant was

¶26

Crl.A.No.1942/2021 3

¶27

accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were his sibblings.

¶28

Accused Nos.5 to 7 were the relatives of the appellant.

¶29

The complaint was filed by one

¶30

Sri.Shivaswamy N. alleging that on 26-09-2021 at 4:30 p.m., when he had been to the house of accused No.1 - M.P. Raju, to supervise the bar binding work, accused No.1 objected his entry into the house on the ground that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and on his prompting accused Nos.2 to 4 came to the scene of offence and assaulted him. He alleged later accused No.5 - Shankar M.P. also came there and abused him with reference to his caste and accused Nos.5 to 7 named in the FIR also assaulted him.

¶31

FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 143, 147,149, 307, 323 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While filing the charge sheet, accused Nos.1 and 5 named in the FIR against whom the caste based

¶32

¶33

atrocity allegations were made were dropped. Further, dropping the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶34

In the charge sheet, accused No.1 - M.P. Raju was replaced by a juvenile offender by name Preetham @ Preetham Shakti. Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 are granted bail. Accused No.1 in the charge sheet being a juvenile has been sent to Juvenile Justice Board.

¶35

The appellant (accused No.3) apprehending his arrest in the said case, filed anticipatory bail petition before the trial Court. the Trial Court rejected the application on the sole ground that Section 18 of the SC/ST POA Act bars granting anticipatory bail.

¶36

As already observed above, caste based allegations were against accused Nos.1 and 5, who are dropped in the charge sheet. Sections 143, 147, 149 etc. are

¶37

Crl.A.No.1942/2021 5

¶38

also dropped. The allegation against the appellant was that he attempted to commit murder of the complainant by throttling him and threatened him of his life. But Section 307 of IPC is dropped while filing charge sheet.

¶39

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no prima facie material attracting the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ST(POA) Act against the appellant.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the para 11 of the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727 , has held 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. The charge sheet is already filed. Therefore, except for the trail, the detention of the appellant is not required for any other

¶41

Crl.A.No.1942/2021 6

¶42

purpose. The other offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶43

Under the circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.

¶44

Appellant’s petition for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. If he is arrested in Crime No.42/2021 of Santemaralli Police Station, which is now pending in Special Case No.208/2021, on the file of the jurisdictional Special Judge, 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 one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Court.

¶47

Crl.A.No.1942/2021 7

¶48

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Trial Court as and when required.

¶49

(iv) He shall not tamper the witnesses in any

¶50

manner.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

BMV*

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Sri T N Thimmarajachar Vs Sri K R Sathyanarayana

Raghavendra @ Kumara @ Kothambarikumara Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka