Allowed

Bhadregowda @ Eregowda v. State by Arakalgud

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2022CRL.A/419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act. It quashed orders denying bail and granted bail to accused No.1 and anticipatory bail to accused No.2 in a case involving suicide by pesticide consumption following a loan dispute.

What did the court decide?

Crl.A.419/2022 and Crl.A.369/2022 allowed; impugned orders set aside; accused No.1 enlarged on bail with conditions; accused No.2 to be released on bail if arrested.

Bhadregowda @ Eregowda Vs State by Arakalgud — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.419 OF 2022 C/W. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.369 OF 2022

¶7

IN CRL.A.NO.419 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BHADREGOWDA @ EREGOWDA S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT H.R.P. VADDARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT–573 102.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY M.T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY ARAKALGUD POLICE STATION, ARAKALAGUDU, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU–560 001.

¶14

SMT. SUMITHRA W/O LATE DORESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, MOKALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R1) R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN REGISTER BY RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.42/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306,504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN.

¶19

IN CRL.A.NO.369 OF 2022

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

NAGA @ NAGARAJAU @ GIDDANAGA, S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O SALAGOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶22

… APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI. UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARAKALAGUD POLICE STATION, ARAKALAGUD CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001)

¶26

SUMITHRA W/O DORESWAMY AGED MAJOR, R/O MOKALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R1) R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 IN CRL.MISC.NO.257/2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE OF ARAKALGUD POLICE STATION, ARAKALGUD CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.42/2022 OF ARAKALGUD POLICE STATION, ARAKALGUD CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT (REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST.

¶31

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Criminal appeal No.419/2022 is preferred by accused No.1 and Criminal appeal No.369/2022 is preferred by accused No.2.

¶34

The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in crime No.42/2022 of Arakalgud Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶35

¶36

Atrocities) amendment Act 2015 (SC & ST (POA) Act for short). After the victim died, Section 306 IPC was incorporated.

¶37

Accused No.1 was arrested on 16.02.2022 and he preferred a bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 28.02.2022. Accused No.2 preferred a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court vide order dated 09.03.2022.

¶38

These appeals are preferred praying to set aside the impugned order and consequently to grant the relief of bail.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for appellants, the learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶40

respondent/State and perused the material on record.

¶41

Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant has

¶42

been served but there is no representation.

¶43

¶44

It is the case of prosecution that deceased Sri. Doreswamy had taken a hand loan of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) from accused No.1 with interest at 5% and about five months prior he had returned a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and there was a balance of Rs.20,000/-. Since, he could not repay the said amount, accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 had snatched his bike. On 14.02.2022, at about 8.45 a.m., deceased took accused No.2 and went near the house of accused No.1 and requested him to return the bike key. At that time, accused No.1 abused him in filthy language and also tried to assault him. Dejected by the same, the deceased consumed pesticide. His cousin by name Sri. Arun shifted him to Arakalgud Government Hospital and from there he was shifted to S.C. Hospital, Hassan, wherein, he died on 17.02.2022 at about 10.15 a.m.

¶45

After his death, the wife of the deceased gave a complaint to the police accusing both accused Nos.1 and 2 responsible for the death of her husband. It is alleged by her that both the accused have snatched the bike of her

¶46

¶47

husband and also abused him in filthy language referring to his caste etc.

¶48

In respect of the incident, which took place on 14.02.2022, at about 8.45 a.m., case was registered on the basis of the statement of the victim on 15.02.2022, at about 4.30 p.m. A careful perusal of his statement does not reveal that there was any allegation against accused No.2, that he has abused the deceased in filthy language referring to his caste. The only allegation against him is that he had given the bike key of the deceased to accused No.1 and both the deceased and accused No.2 went together near the house of accused No.1 to ask him to return the bike. Even in the first information report, there is no allegation against accused No.2, that he has insulted

¶49

the victim referring to his caste. The prosecution has alleged that on account of abetment by the accused persons, the victim consumed pesticide on 15.02.2022, at about 10.30 a.m. and subsequently died while undergoing treatment. Hence, it is alleged that the accused have abetted the victim to commit suicide.

¶50

¶51

Whether the accused have intentionally aided

¶52

or abetted the deceased to commit suicide is a matter which has to be established in due course. Perusal of the complaint lodged by the victim, does not indicate that there is a prima facie case against the appellants, which would attract the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act. Hence, there is no bar in granting anticipatory bail to accused No.2. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, he has been arrested and interrogated. He is not required for any further investigation. In that view of the matter, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the appellants are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Crl.A.419/2022 and Crl.A.369/2022 are allowed. Impugned orders are set aside.

¶55

The appellant/accused No.1 in Crl.A.419/2022, shall be enlarged on bail in crime No.42/2022, Arakalgud Police Station, Hassan District, subject to following conditions:

¶56

¶57

(i) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶58

(ii) He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court if there is any change in the address;

¶59

(iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

¶60

(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of learned Sessions Court;

¶61

(v) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., till conclusion of investigation and he shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶62

(vi) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings.

¶63

¶64

Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.369/2022, shall be released in the event of his arrest in crime No.42/2022 of Arakalgud Police station, Hassan District, subject to following conditions:

¶65

(i) He shall appear before the investigation officer within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶66

(ii) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for likesum.

¶67

(iii) He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court if there is any change in the address;

¶68

(iv) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

¶69

(v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of learned Sessions Judge;

¶70

(vi) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police station on every

¶71

¶72

Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., till conclusion of investigation and he shall cooperate for the investigation; and

¶73

(vii) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Bhadregowda @ Eregowda v. State by Arakalgud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhadregowda @ Eregowda v. State by Arakalgud

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 Govindappa S/O Late Marappa Vs State of Karnataka

M. Shankar S/O Nageshrao Munga, Vs the State of Karnataka

Aruna @ Arun Vs the State by S H O

Naga @ Nagarajau @ Giddanaga Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Maniyamma Vs the State by K R Pete Town Police

Thimmesh Vs State by Hebbagodi Police