Allowed

Gautham K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022CRL.A/1978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under the SC/ST Act challenging the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. Finding that the refusal to grant bail was erroneous as the allegations of caste abuse lacked prima facie foundation, the Court set aside the lower court order and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was admitted and allowed. The order rejecting anticipatory bail was set aside, and bail was granted subject to a bond of Rs. 50,000 and specified conditions.

Gautham K Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Gautham K., S/o Krishna Kumar, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.980, 9^th Main Road, 20^th Cross, Sector-7, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560102.

¶8

Karthik K., S/o Krishna Kumar, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.980, 9^th Main Road, 20^th Cross, Sector-7, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560102.

¶9

Rahul N., S/o Nanjunda Reddy K., Aged about 28 years, R/at No.11, 1^st Cross, Shankarnag Road, Opp. Radhavendra Choultry Virat Nagar, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru-560068.

¶10

Anirud Reddy, S/o S.K.Venkatesh, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.1, Raghavendra Nilaya, 3^rd Cross, Near Lakshmibalaji Theatre, Sudda Gunte Palya, Bengaluru-560029.

¶11

:: 2 ::

¶12

Jaganath B.V., S/o Venkatesh Reddy, Aged about 29 years, R/at No.712, 10^th Cross, Shankarnag Road, Near Raghavendra Kalyana Mantapa, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru-560068.

¶13

Siddarth K.S., S/o Swaminathan, Aged about 30 years, R/at No.89/1, Sai Krupa, Sy.No.21, Kaveri Layout, Opp. Sur Flora Apartment, Somasundara Palya, Kudlu Village, Bengaluru-560029. …Appellants

¶14

(By Sri Harish C.S., Advocate)

¶15

AND:

¶16

State of Karnataka By HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru-560102. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶17

Smt. Lakshmi, W/o Mahadev, Aged about 56 years, No.5, 1^st Main Road, 1^st Cross, Vinayaka Nagar, HSR Layout, 6^th Sector, Bengaluru-560102.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri K.K.Krishna Kumar, HCGP for R1 & Sri Gavisiddappa, Advocate for R2)

¶20

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to enlarge this

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

appellant on bail in Cr.No.214/2022 of the HSR Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under section 506, 504, 149, 323, 354 of IPC and under section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and set aside the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.9720/2022 and etc.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), questioning the correctness of the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.9720/2022, rejecting the appellants’ application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.214/2022 registered by the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC and

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellants are accused 1 to 6.

¶28

Heard Sri Harish C S, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.K.Krishna Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri Gavisiddappa S, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

There are two FIRs, one filed against the appellants at the instance of second respondent and the other by the first appellant herein against the second respondent and her family members.

¶30

The incident is in relation to a quarrel

¶31

said to have taken place on 18.09.2022 in front of the house of second respondent. What is alleged is that the first appellant herein while driving his car found a motorbike being parked in the middle of the road and therefore he sounded the horn of

¶32

the car. The second respondent and her husband took objection and in that course picked up

¶33

:: 5 ::

¶34

quarrel. The FIR registered against the appellants was registered on 21.09.2022, though the incident took place on 18.09.2022.

¶35

In the complaint made by second

¶36

respondent it is stated that she did not know the names of appellants and she came to know about the appellants after making enquiry. This being the statement found in the FIR, the other allegations that she and her family members were abused in the name of caste do not prima-facie appears to be true. The first appellant has also complained against the second respondent and her family members that he was assaulted and threatened.

¶37

On perusal of the report given by second respondent, it is to be stated that registration of FIR is a clear example as to how the police register FIR for the offences under the provisions of Atrocities Act, without ascertaining the facts. It

¶38

:: 6 ::

¶39

is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The court below has failed to apply its mind. Hence the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Appeal is allowed.

¶42

The order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.9720/2022 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶43

In the event of arrest of the appellants by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.214/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

¶44

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

¶45

:: 7 ::

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Kmv/-

Gautham K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautham K v. 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

Smt Paniyaravara Chunde Vs the State of Karnataka

Selvaraj @ Selva @ Kulla Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Navaneeth T @ Naveen Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Aboobakkar Vs the State of Karnataka