Allowed

Sri. Ravindrareddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2022CRL.A/2133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application. The court held that the incident was caused by a dispute over MNREGA work methods (JCB vs. manual labor) rather than caste, and thus the earlier refusal of bail could not be sustained.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside bail application is set aside; appellants released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000 and sufficient sureties subject to specified conditions.

Sri. Ravindrareddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2133 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri Ravindrareddy, S/o Anjanreddy, Aged about 45 years,

¶8

Sri Narayanareddy, S/o Late Venkatareddy, Aged about 60 years,

¶9

Sri Pothareddy, S/o Anjina Reddy, Aged about 43 years,

¶10

Sri Hanumanthareddy, S/o Arjuna Reddy, Aged about 58 years,

¶11

Smt. Shaila R.P. @ Shylaja, W/o Ravindrareddy, Aged about 46 years,

¶12

Smt. Radhamma, W/o Narayanareddy, Aged about 55 years,

¶13

Smt. Chidambaramma, W/o Pothareddy, Aged about 33 years,

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

Smt. Sujatha, W/o Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 38 years,

¶16

All appellant Nos.1 to 8, Residing at Ryapete Village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District-572136.

¶17

…Appellants

¶18

(By Sri Vivek S., Advocate)

¶19

AND:

¶20

The State of Karnataka, By Thirumani Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

¶21

Sri Nagaraja, S/o Late Nallappa, R/at Ryapte (Ryaade) Village, Hussainpura Post, Nagalamadike Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District-572136.

¶22

…Respondents

¶23

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; R2 - served)

¶24

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Crl.Misc.No.1586/2022 and etc.

¶25

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

¶26

:: 3 ::

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), questioning the correctness of the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.1586/2022, dismissing the appellants’ application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.56/2022 registered by the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellants are accused 1 to 8 respectively.

¶29

Heard Sri Vivek S, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

No.1-State. According to submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, respondent No.2 is said to be served with notice of this appeal, but there is no representation.

¶32

In the report made by the second respondent to the police what is written is that the appellants stopped the drainage work undertaken in the colony of schedule caste people at Rapte village, Nagalamadike Hobli, Pavagada Taluk. The total length of drainage was 180 meters. The drainage was constructed upto the house of Dikaseen Marappa and the further construction work was stopped at the instance of the appellants. Thereafter the officials and the police came to the spot for inspection. It is alleged that the appellants did not allow the police and the officials and thereafter at 5.00pm, all the appellants came to colony and threatened the

¶33

:: 5 ::

¶34

people of scheduled caste of dire consequences and assaulted them with their hands.

¶35

The court below has opined that the alleged incident would show atrocities on the people of scheduled caste and therefore anticipatory bail could not be granted.

¶36

The appellants’ counsel would argue that the appellants took objection for carrying out the works using JCB instead of manually. The work was sanctioned under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (‘MNREGA’ for short) and therefore the entire work was to be carried out manually. When the appellants took objection for this, a false complaint was made against them. The appellants also filed a suit, O.S.No.351/2022 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the Executive Officer and Panchayat Development Officer from

¶37

:: 6 ::

¶38

carrying out the work by using JCB. Though copy of the plaint was produced before the court below, it has been ignored. In fact the reason for the alleged incident is with regard to construction of a drainage and the appellants never had intention to insult the people of scheduled caste.

¶39

Learned High court Government Pleader opposes the appeal by submitting that the contents of the complaint clearly discloses the people of scheduled caste being insulted in the name of caste.

¶40

After hearing both the sides, if the report made by the second respondent to the police on 13.10.2022 is perused meticulously, it appears that the drainage construction work was the reason for taking place of the incident on 12.10.2022. If the contents of the plaint in O.S.No.351/2022 are read, what appears is that the drainage work had been undertaken using JCB.

¶41

:: 7 ::

¶42

Since the work had been sanctioned under MNREGA scheme, machines were not supposed to be used. The prayer column in the suit shows that the appellants wanted to restrain the officials from using JCB machines. The suit was filed on 26.09.2022 i.e., before the second respondent approached the police. In the background of these facts and circumstances, it may be stated that the real reason for the incident appears to be some thing other than caste factor. The trial court has failed to notice this aspect of the matter. That apart, the appellants are all permanent residents of the village and if their presence is necessary for investigation, they can be secured at any time. Therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. For all these reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

:: 8 ::

The order dated 14.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1586/2022 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside.

¶47

In the event of arrest of the appellants by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.56/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:(i) They shall co-operate with the investigating officer for completing the investigation.

¶48

:: 9 ::

¶49

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

¶50

(iii) They shall not threaten the

¶51

witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Kmv/-

Sri. Ravindrareddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ravindrareddy 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

Sri Narendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangamesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

R v Balaji @ Balaji Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Girraj Prasad Meena Vs Union of India

Dr Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru Vs State of Karnataka