Allowed

Sri M Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2022CRL.A/470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail. Despite absolute bar under SC/ST Act, set aside impugned order finding facts such as timing of abuse missing and prima facie case not made out, granting bail subject to bond and attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting anticipatory bail set aside. Appellants granted release in event of arrest subject to bond, address proof, non-tamper conditions, and attending court and IO.

Sri M Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.470 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. M. NAGARAJU

¶9

S/o LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 Years R/At NO.62, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 090

¶10

SRI. LAKSHMI JANARDHANA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.121, SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 090

¶11

… APPELLANTS

¶12

[BY SRI.R. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE(VC)]

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

¶16

SRI. RAGHU KUMAR S/O RAMANJANAIAH.P AGED MAJOR BILL COLLECTOR, SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE GRAMAPANCHAYATH CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 090

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.355/2022 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.303/2021 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-A), 3(1)(q) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. Perused the materials on record. Respondent No.2 is served, but there is no representation.

¶25

The appellants are seeking to set aside the order dated 02.03.2022 passed in Crl.Mis.No.352/2022 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and consequently to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in relation to a case registered in crime No.303/2021 at Soladevanahalli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(1)(q) of Secheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred as 'SC/ST (POA) Act') and Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶26

The complaint is lodged by one Sri.

¶27

Raghukumar. R before the respondent police, wherein, it is averred that he is working as a Bill Collector since 13

¶28

¶29

years at Somashettihalli Gramapanchayath. Accused No.1 used to visit the office of the Gramapanchayath demanding to create illegal documents and when he refused, he abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste and his brother i.e., accused No.2 also abused and threatened him etc. It is alleged that the accused have abused and threatened him saying that he will be implicated in a false case and removed from the job. It is alleged that the accused persons were giving him mental torture and insulted his caste in public view etc.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that certain properties belonging to the Government are in possession and custody of Somashettihalli Gramapanchayath and some land grabbers, in order to knock off the said land, have colluded with 2^nd respondent and they have illegally made khathas in their names in the revenue records. In this connection, appellant No.1 has given representation to the Gramapanchayath and Taluk Panchayath,

¶31

¶32

Bengaluru North Taluk to cancel the illegal khathas and representations were given to the Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj, Government of Karnataka. In pursuance to the same, order has been issued to take appropriate legal action with regard to said illegal khathas. He contends that in this background some persons who are on inimical terms have colluded with respondent No.2 and initiated false criminal case against the appellants. He further submits that there was a fire accident in the Gramapanchayath on 18.06.2021 and some of the documents were destroyed in the said fire including the documents relating to illegal khathas standing in the names of 35 to 40 persons and based on a representation given to the Commissioner, Panchyath Raj and Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru North Division, by accused No.3, the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath has requested the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath to take necessary action against the 2^nd respondent and others. Therefore, contends that the 2^nd respondent in order to wreak vengeance and to

¶33

¶34

protect himself, has filed a false complaint against the appellants. He further contends that even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken at its face value, the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out and it is not stated as to when the appellants have abused the complainant etc. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating these aspects, has erroneously rejected the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, seeks to allow the appeal.

¶35

The learned HCGP contends that the averments in the complaint clearly attracts the ingredients of the offences under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, in view of the bar created under Section 18 and 18A of the said Act, the appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge having considered prima-facie materials against the appellants, has rightly dismissed the prayer seeking anticipatory bail.

¶36

¶37

It is alleged in the complaint, amongst various other allegations, that the accused have visited the office of Somashettihalli Gramapanchayath wherein the

¶38

complainant is working as Bill Collector and abused him in filthy language as “J¸ï.¹ ¨ÉÆÃ½ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, ¤£Àß£ÀÄß PÉ®¸À¢Az À vÉUÉzÀÄºÁQ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É”. Further appellant No.2 abused the complaint as “£ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£À PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÉÆÃ CAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®è CAwÃAiÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ CzÉÃUÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀÄrÛAiÉÆÃ £ÉÆÃrÛÃ¤” JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, “PÀ«Ää eÁwAiÀÄgÉÃ EµÀÄÖ”.

¶39

8. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated as to

¶40

when the accused/appellants visited the office of the Gramapanchayath and abused the complainant. Though it is alleged that the abusive words were used in public

¶41

view, however the complainant has not stated as to who were present at the time when the incident took place. It is not the case of the complainant that only on the ground that he belonged to a member of Scheduled Caste, he was abused by the appellants. The complaint

¶42

¶43

itself states that there was a fire accident in the Gramapanchayath on 18.06.2021 and in this connection a case was registered at Soladevanahalli Police Station and during of investigation, the accused persons have reported against the complainant to the higher officers about his involvement in destroying the documents. Though it is alleged in the complaint that the appellants were repeatedly visiting the Gramapanchayath office and demanding the complainant to create illegal documents, however, it is nowhere stated that the same was brought

¶44

to the notice of the higher officers by the complainant. The complainant is working as a Bill Collector for the past 13 years. It is not forthcoming in the complaint as to when the appellants have abused the complainant. As per the first information report, the offence is committed from 18.06.2021. The complaint is lodged on 08.12.2021. In the said facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that a prima-facie case is made out at this stage. The prosecution has to establish the case against the appellants in due course. Hence, the

¶45

¶46

appellants have made sufficient ground to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Appeal is allowed.

¶49

The impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed in Crl.Mis.No.355/2022 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru insofar as rejecting the application filed by the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside.

¶50

Appellants/accused No.1 and 2 are ordered to be released in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.303/2021 of Soladevanahalli Police Station subject to following conditions:

¶51

i. Appellants/accused No.1 and 2 shall

¶52

appear before the Investigating Officer

¶53

¶54

within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶55

ii. They shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.

¶56

iii. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶57

iv. They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on 2^nd and 4^th Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m., to 2.00 p.m., till filing of the chargesheet or for a period of two months `from the date of this order, whichever is earlier.

¶58

¶59

v. They shall regularly attend the

¶60

Court proceedings.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Sri M Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Nagaraju 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

Yogesh K L @ Yogi @ Gunda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Kumar B K Vs State by

Sri Yashwanth Vs State by Women Police Station

Aruna @ Arun Vs the State by S H O

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Muthamma, W/O B. Nagaraju, Vs the State