Allowed

Sri Jayarama Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2022CRL.A/2001/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing an appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application, the High Court held that insufficient evidence proved an intention to insult the victim based on caste. The court observed that mere mention of caste does not attract the SC/ST Act and allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowed subject to execution of a bond of Rs. 50,000 and ensuring non-therminting of witnesses.

Sri Jayarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2001 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri Jayarama Reddy S/o Bayareddy Aged about 29 years R/at Palepalli village Ambajidurga Hobli Chinthamani Taluk Chikkaballapura District PIN – 562 101

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri S.Ganesh Shenoy, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka Represented by Chinthamani Rural Police Chinthamani – 563 125 Represented by State Public Prosecutor

¶12

Sri Harish P C S/o Channakeshavappa Aged about 24 years R/at Palepalli village Ambajidurga Hobli Chinthamani Taluk Chikkaballapura District PIN – 562 101

¶13

…Respondents (By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2-Served)

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura in Crl.Misc.No.763/2022 and grant an anticipatory bail to the appellant in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.380/2022 registered by the first respondent Police, for the offence p/u/s 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [‘SC/ST Act’ for short], challenging the correctness of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Crl.Misc.No.763/2022, dismissing the appellant’s application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.380/2022 registered by the first respondentpolice for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

¶19

:: 3 ::

¶20

Heard Sri S.Ganesh Shenoy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. The report of the investigating officer is that the notice of this appeal has been served on the sister of the second respondent. Service on respondent No.2 can be held sufficient. There is no representation on behalf of second respondent.

¶21

If the report made by the second respondent to the police is perused, what appears is that, probably when a procession of a deity was being taken in the village, at 11.00pm on 03.10.2022, there might have taken place hustling on account of which the second respondent was pushed aside. It appears that the second respondent questioned the appellant and for this the appellant took the name of his caste and abused him and then inflicted injury with a knife

¶22

:: 4 ::

¶23

on the back, left hand, ribs and head of the second respondent besides putting life threat.

¶24

Therefore it can be gathered from the

¶25

FIR that the incident might have taken place in a crowd. Intention on the part of the appellant to insult the second respondent just because he belonged to ‘Nayaka’ caste is not forthcoming. Mere taking the name of caste does not amount to an offence.

¶26

The wound certificate shows that the injuries sustained by the second respondent are all simple in nature. The offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 are all bailable and the only non bailable offence is under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act. But sufficient materials to attract the provisions of Atrocities Act are not forthcoming.

¶27

It appears that the trial court has declined to grant anticipatory bail for the reason

¶28

:: 5 ::

¶29

that the appellant took the name of the caste of the second respondent. But in my opinion, intention to insult second respondent as he belongs to ‘Nayaka’ caste is not forthcoming. In this view Section 18 of the Act does not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail. The appellant is the permanent resident of the village and his presence can always be secured for the purpose of investigation. Hence the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Appeal is allowed.

¶32

The order dated 19.10.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.763/2022 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, is set aside.

¶33

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

¶34

In the event of arrest of the appellant by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.380/2022, he shall be released on bail subject to his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only)

¶35

:: 6 ::

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Kmv/-

Sri Jayarama Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayarama Reddy 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

Smt Ambika Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Shivu @ Tinku Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harsha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri V.D Kurtakoti Vs State by Cbi/Acb

Ramu @ Dande Palli Ramu Vs State of Karnataka

Nayaz @ Mohammed Siraj Vs State of Karnataka