Allowed

Mr. v. R. Mukunda v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2022CRL.A/1959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Sessions Judge's order rejecting anticipatory bail. Setting aside the prior order, the Court granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., stating the lower court erred in finding a prima facie case for atrocities.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation.

Mr. v. R. Mukunda Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1959 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. V.R.Mukunda, (Mr. Mukund Bhat) S/o Late Raghavabhattar, Aged 47 years, Residing at No.01, 9^th Main, J.P.Nagar, 7^th Phase, Puttenahalli, Bengaluru-560078.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri P.V.Mahale, Senior Advocate for Sri V.Rangaramu, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka By Puttenahalli Police Station, Rep. by Station House Officer, Puttenahalli, Subramanyapura Sub Division, Bengaluru-560078.

¶12

Motappa, Aged 75 years, S/o Kakappa, R/at Nanjappa Complex 4^th Main, Puttenahalli, J.P.Nagar, 7^th Phase, Bengaluru-78

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Sri B.N.Shivakumar, Advocate for Sri A.Swaminatha, Advocate for R2)

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge at Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.10282/2022, and etc.

¶17

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

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard Sri P.V.Mahale, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State and Sri B.N.Shivakumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶20

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [‘SC/ST Act’ for short], challenging the correctness of the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.10282/2022, rejecting the appellant’s application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

Crime No.257/2022 registered by the first respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

¶23

The genesis of FIR is a report given to

¶24

the police by the second respondent on 15.10.2022 stating that the appellant had illegally sold 0-35 guntas of land in Sy.No.25/3 of Puttenahalli village. According to the second respondent, the said land was donated to Anjaneyaswamy Temple, but the appellant being the Archak of the temple created false documents and sold the said land to somebody. In this regard on 15.10.2022 at 10.25am, when the second respondent and some villagers went near the temple to question the illegal sale, the appellant insulted the second respondent taking the name of his caste and threatened to kill him.

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

Sri P.V.Mahale, learned senior counsel

¶27

submits that the said land was an inam land and granted to the appellant under the provisions of Inam Abolition Act. The litigations started after the grant in favour of the appellant. The grant in favour of the appellant became final by virtue of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.3963/2018. The appellant also filed a civil suit for injunction against the second respondent and that the latter violated the order of injunction. This being the background, FIR was the last desperate attempt made by the second respondent with false imputations.

¶28

But Sri B.N.Shivakumar, learned counsel for second respondent submits that the land belongs to the temple and the appellant had no right to sell it away. When the sale was sought to be questioned by all the villagers, the appellant resorted to humiliate the second respondent in the

¶29

:: 5 ::

¶30

name of his caste. The Government Pleader

¶31

argued for sustaining the impugned order.

¶32

If the impugned order is perused, it

¶33

appears that the trial court appears to have been carried away by one sentence found in the report which refers to the caste of the second respondent. It has not examined the reason for the dispute between the parties. Moreover from the report of the second respondent itself it can be made out that it was not only the second respondent who wanted to question the sale, but also the other villagers were said to be present. So because of presence of other villagers, it becomes impossible to believe that the appellant chose the second respondent alone to insult or humiliate him with reference to his caste. The second respondent’s counsel does not dispute pendency of Civil Suit against the second respondent. If he was really insulted in the name

¶34

:: 6 ::

¶35

of caste, it is a matter of investigation. The appellant is the permanent resident of the village and his presence can always be secured for the purpose of investigation. Prima-facie case as regards commission of offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act is not forthcoming. Therefore Section 18 of SC/ST Act cannot be applied. In this view appeal can be allowed. Hence the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Appeal is allowed.

¶38

The order dated 02.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.10282/2022 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶39

Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶40

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.257/2022, he shall be released on bail subject to his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only)

¶41

:: 7 ::

¶42

and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

¶43

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

¶44

(ii) He shall attend the police station whenever his presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶45

(iii) He shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶46

consideration, it stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Kmv/-

Mr. v. R. Mukunda v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. v. R. Mukunda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Byranna @ Byregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Edward Anil Dsouza Vs State by Hennur Police Station

Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Vs State of Karnataka

Selvaraj @ Selva @ Kulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Paniyaravara Chunde Vs the State of Karnataka

Navaneeth T @ Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka