Allowed

S v. Srinivasa v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022CRL.A/536/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the lower court's order rejecting anticipatory bail. It held that no prima facie case for Atrocities Act offences was made out as the charges were added post-FIR registration without cast-based grievance, and noted the appellants' own scheduled caste status.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; appellants to be released on bail in case of arrest with security and conditions.

S v Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.536/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S.V. SRINIVASA S/O A. VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT SURANAHALLI CHITRADURGA-577 538.

¶8

M. NAGARAJA S/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12, NAYAKANAHATTY MAIN ROAD, NEAR BANNIMARADA KATTE VENKATESHWARA NAGARA CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 722.

¶9

D.V.K. SWAMY S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWLURU

¶10

CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 722.

¶11

BASAVARAJA S/O SHASTRI ERANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT VISHWANATHAPURA JUNJARAGUNTE, CHITRADURGA-577 538.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. P.L. VANDANA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHALLAKERE P.S REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

MADUGINA BASAPPA S/O VEERABADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA-577 722.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) OF THE SC/ST ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL ON CONDITIONS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE EVENT OF THE APPELLANTS’ ARREST IN PURSUANCE OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING CRIME NO.41/2022 DATED 14.02.2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 353, 332, 427, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC AND ADDITIONALLY SECTIONS 324, 307, 504 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), questioning the correctness of the common order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.Misc.No.180/2022 c/w Crl.Misc.Nos.184/2022 and 185/2022, rejecting the appellants’ application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.41/2022 registered by the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353, 332, 427, 506, 324, 307 and 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellants are accused 1, 3, 4 and 5.

¶25

Heard Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

counsel for the appellants and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice and he has not entered appearance either personally or through an advocate.

¶28

The incident in connection with which FIR was registered was that the second respondent was working as Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Challakere and on 14.02.2022 at 03.30pm, when he was in his office, the appellants and some others entered his chamber, assaulted him and put life threat besides damaging the furniture.

¶29

The FIR was registered at 5.00pm on 14.02.2022 and all these appellants were arrested and produced before the Magistrate at 10.00pm on the same day. At that time, the learned Magistrate noticed that the police had not followed

¶30

:: 5 ::

¶31

the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR and ordered for releasing the appellants on bail. At the time when the FIR was registered, the police had not invoked the offences under the provisions of Atrocities Act and after coming to know that the second respondent belongs to schedule tribe, the offences under the provisions of the said Act came to be added in the FIR.

¶32

If the impugned order is perused, the court below has observed that the materials indicate that the appellants are the leaders of a political party and therefore if anticipatory bail is granted, they would interfere with the investigation process. He has also observed that prima-facie case for commission of offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act has been madeout.

¶33

:: 6 ::

¶34

Unhesitatingly, it can be held that the impugned order shows no application of mind. The court below has lost sight to the fact that when an FIR was registered against the appellants, the police did not invoke the provisions of Atrocities Act and in-fact in the report made by the second respondent, he stated nothing about castiest attack. He just stated that when he was in his chamber, the appellants came and interfered with his work besides putting life threat.

¶35

It appears that after coming to know of the caste of the second respondent, the police added the provisions of Atrocities Act and it was without any basis. Moreover in para 23 of the impugned order, the learned Judge has referred to a counter FIR in Crime No.42/2022, registered at the instance of the first appellant, namely, S.V.Srinvias. Perusal of this FIR also discloses that appellants 1 and 2 also belong to scheduled

¶36

:: 7 ::

¶37

caste and this was sufficient for the court below to come to conclusion that an incident in the background of caste might not have taken place. Therefore it can be said that there are no primafacie materials in relation to offences under the provisions of Atrocities Act.

¶38

So far as the offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, the wound certificate shows that the second respondent sustained injuries like tenderness all over the body. It might be on account of assault made on him. But it does not indicate that the appellants had made an attempt to take away the life of second respondent. These being the facts and circumstances, the court below should have granted anticipatory bail to the appellants. Moreover the appellants were already on bail already and this should have been considered by the court below. Therefore the

¶39

:: 8 ::

¶40

appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Appeal is allowed.

¶43

The order dated 16.03.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.184/2022 & Crl.Misc. No.185/2022 (so far as the appellants 1 to 4 are concerned) by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chitradurga, is set aside.

¶44

In the event of arrest of the appellants by the first respondent police in connection with Crime No.41/2022, they shall be released on bail subject to each of them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) and providing one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

¶45

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

¶46

:: 9 ::

¶47