Allowed

Sri.Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar S v. State by Bagaluru Police Station

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2022CRL.A/38/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal appeals filed under the SC/ST (POA) Act challenging the rejection of anticipatory and regular bail petitions. The High Court quashed the lower court orders allowing bail due to inconsistencies in witness statements and the accused's own scheduled caste status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; anticipatory bail and bail granted to the appellants subject to execution of personal bond and appearance before relevant courts.

Sri.Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar S Vs State by Bagaluru… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶2

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38/2022

¶9

C/W

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1821/2021

¶11

CRL.A.NO.38/2022

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI.SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH KUMAR S S/O K.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.104/6 4^TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 040

¶14

...APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SMT.N.PADMAVATHI, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY BAGALURU POLICE STATION BANGALORE

¶18

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001

¶19

SRI.MURALI S/O VENKATSWAMY AGED 26 YEARS RESIDING AT M HOSALLI JALA HOBLI

¶20

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶21

¶22

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶23

YALAHANKA TALUK

¶24

BANGALORE CITY – 562 149

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;

¶27

VIDE ORDER DATED 07.02.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT; R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU DATED 10.12.2021 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1858/2021 AND DIRECT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CHARGE OF CR.NO.214/2021 OF BAGALURU POLICE STATION TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.214/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 342, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(a),3(1)(r),3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶29

CRL.A.NO.1821/2021:

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

DR.RAKESH SHETTY S/O N.K.SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DR AT MARUTHI HOSPITAL R/AT NO.209 ASHOKA NEST, 2^ND FLOOR THIPPANNA LAYOUT KOTHANUR, BANGALORE - 77

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI.S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALURU POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY

¶36

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶37

¶38

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶39

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶40

MURALI S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED 26 YEARS AUTO DRIVER M HOSALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI YALAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE CITY – 560 063

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶43

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIME NO.214/2021 BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 342, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(a),3(1)(r),3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT. THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits report of Investigating Officer regarding service of notice on respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 served, unrepresented.

¶46

Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.38/2022 is accused No.6 and appellant in Criminal Appeal

¶47

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶48

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶49

¶50

No.1821/2021 is accused No.1 in Crime No.214/2021 of Bagaluru police station.

¶51

Respondent No.1 police have charge sheeted the appellants and five others for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 342, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short) on the basis of the complaint of CW.1 Murali.

¶52

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶53

That accused No.1 is the owner of the Maruthi hospital, Yalahanka. CW.1 is the Auto Driver. Accused No.1 had organised dinner in Country club situated in Sathanoor village. Accused No.1 hired auto of CW.1 to carry the food items from the hotel of CW.18 to Country club and bring CW.17. During that process they made CW.1 to over stay in the Country club and Maruti Hospital. They forcibly administered alcohol to him, assaulted him in

¶54

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶55

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶56

¶57

front of Maruthi Hospital and in Country club and caused him grievous injuries. Accused Nos.1 and 3 abused CW.1 with reference to his caste and humiliated him.

¶58

In the FIR except the name of accused No.1, other names were not shown. The alleged incident said to have taken place on 04.11.2021 between 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. in Country club. CW.1 filed complaint on 08.11.2021 at 7.p.m. FIR is delivered to the Court on 09.11.2021 at 10.15 a.m.

¶59

In the complaint CW.1 did not name the appellant Santhosh in Crl.A.No.38/2022 as assailant. For the first time in the remand application dated 10.11.2021, he was shown as accused No.5. But there were no specific allegations against him. While filing charge sheet he is shown as accused No.6.

¶60

On 04.11.2021 CW.1 was purportedly examined in Yalahanka hospital. At that time on the statement of CW.1 dated 05.11.2021 the case was

¶61

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶62

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶63

¶64

registered only as Non Cognizable Report. In that complaint there were no allegations of caste based discrimination or assault.

¶65

In his statement dated 08.11.2021 he says that accused assaulted him in Country club and urinated in his mouth. But he gave further statement on 09.11.2021 saying that such allegations were made under misconception. The statements of CW.11 the Manager, CW.12 and 13 the servants in Country club, CW.14 the security guard of Country club, CW.15 the Maruthi Hospital staff, CW.17 the Technician of the said hospital do not implicate the appellants in any manner. As against that, as per the charge sheet records and the aforesaid statements, respondent No.2 himself was in inebriated condition.

¶66

In the charge sheet accused No.6 was shown as absconding accused. Accused No.1 was arrested on 09.11.2021 since then he is in judicial custody. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the bail and

¶67

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶68

¶69

anticipatory bail petitions of the appellants on the ground that there is prima-facie material to show the caste based discrimination etc. The trial Court further held that in the light of such allegations Section 18A of the Act bars granting of anticipatory bail.

¶70

Accused No.6 has produced his son’s caste certificate and his School records. As per those records accused No.6 also belongs to the Scheduled caste. In the charge sheet there is no allegation of caste based discrimination against him. Therefore the trial Court was not justified in invoking Sections 18 and 18A of the Act against him.

¶71

Investigation is already completed. Except for trial the detention of the appellants is not required for any other purposes. The above facts and circumstance show that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of respondent No.2 himself about the occurrence of incident. The statements of charge sheet witnesses CW.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 create doubt

¶72

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶73

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶74

¶75

about the role of the appellants. Under such circumstance, it is not just and fair to subject the appellants to pre-trail conviction and sentence. Therefore the appeals are allowed.

¶76

The impugned orders are hereby set aside. The applications of the appellant for anticipatory bail and bail are hereby allowed.

¶77

The appellants are granted anticipatory bail and bail in Crime No.214/2021 which is now pending in Spl.C.C. No.13/2022 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge at Bengaluru Rural District.

¶78

The appellant in Crl.A.No.38/2022 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1821/2021 shall be released on bail in the aforesaid case subject to the following conditions:

¶79

(i) The appellant in Crl.A.No.38/2022 shall appear before Investigating Officer/trial Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶80

CRL.A.No.38/2022

¶81

¶82

C/W CRL.A.No.1821/2021

¶83

(ii) The appellants shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/trial Court;

¶84

(iii) The appellants shall appear before the Court as and when required for trial;

¶85

(iv) The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

PKN

Sri.Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar S v. State by Bagaluru Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Santhosh @ Santhosh Kumar S v. State by Bagaluru Police Station

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

K Manmohan Rao Vs the State by S P Lokayuktha Udupi

Gulraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Kengalaiah @ Thimmaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Amol Kale Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Krishnaveni. S Vs Sri. Jayarama Reddy