Allowed

R Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2022CRL.A/97/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal appeal filing under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, held that no prima facie case attracted Section 3 of the Act, set aside the lower court’s rejection, and granted anticipatory bail to three appellants in a caste-based assault case with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; anticipatory bail granted to appellants in Crime No.155/2021 subject to personal bond, sureties, appearance requirements, and prohibition from tampering witnesses.

R Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.97/2022

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

R.NAGARAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶10

RAJITH GOWDA SON OF R NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS BE (CIVIL) CONTRACTOR

¶11

ANJINAPPA S/O MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS AGRICULTURIST (ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF JALIGE VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV.)

¶14

AND :

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING – 01

¶16

NARAYANASWAMY S/O SUNANDAPPA

¶17

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶18

¶19

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT JALIGE VILLAGE, KUNDANNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MOHAN KUMAR D, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRL. MISC. NO.2059/2021 DATED 05.01.2022 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3 ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.155/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU OF VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 324, 427, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1) (C), 3(1) (R) , 3(1) (U) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard.

¶26

Aggrieved by the rejection of their anticipatory

¶27

bail petition, accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.155/2021 of Vishwanathapura Police Station have preferred the above appeal.

¶28

Respondent No.2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

¶29

He filed complaint before the respondent police on

¶30

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶31

¶32

26.11.2021. Based on that, case in Non Cognizable Report No.320/2021 as per Annexure C was registered against the appellants. In that complaint it was alleged that on 25.11.2022 at 8.15 p.m. when respondent No.2 was proceeding on his motorcycle No.K.A.04.E.8845 at Thindlu circle, the appellants taking objection for he giving evidence in OS No.683/2014 in favour of Smt Aswathamma and Shivakumar abused him with reference to his caste, assaulted him with knife and intimidated him.

¶33

On filing of NCR report, respondent No.1 police summoned the appellants and recorded their statements. On 16.12.2021 at 4.45 p.m. respondent No.2 filed another

¶34

complaint before respondent No.1 making the same allegations. In that complaint he additionally alleged that the appellants damaged his vehicle, assaulted him and caused injuries, Shivakumar shifted him to the hospital got him treated etc. On that basis respondent No.1 police registered FIR as per Annexure A against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427,

¶35

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶36

¶37

504, 506 read with Sections 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(c),3(1)(r),3(1)(u) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (PoA) Amendment Act 2015. (‘the Act’ for short).

¶38

Apprehending their arrest in the said case, appellants filed Cril.Misc.No.2059/2021 before the trial Court. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the petition on the ground that Section 18 and 18A of the Act bars granting Anticipatory Bail.

¶39

Submission of Sri S.Shankarappa, learned Counsel for the appellants :

¶40

i) Shivakumar’s mother Ashwathamma filed OS

¶41

No. 683/2014 claiming partition in the property of great grandfather of appellant No.1 by creating false pedigree. In that suit, appellant No.1 is impleaded as defendant No.1(c). Shivakumar’s mother Ashwathamma tried to get her name entered to the disputed property in revenue records by forging documents. She was unsuccessful in the proceedings under Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶42

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶43

¶44

ii) On the complaint of appellant No.1 against Ashwathamma and Shivakumar, chargesheet was filed against them in Crime No. 205/2016 of Vishwanathapura police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 of IPC. In that case, respondent No.2 has stood as surety to the said accused. Shivakumar has set up respondent No.2 to settle his scores.

¶45

iii) There is no prima-facie material to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore Sections 18 and 18A are not applicable.

¶46

In support of his contentions he relies the

¶47

following judgments:

¶48

i) Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs.Union of India¹ ii) Rahna Jala Vs. State of Kerala²

¶49

Submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Mohan Kumar D, learned counsel for respondent No.2:

¶50

In the complaint there were allegations of caste based discriminations and the assault causing

¶51

1 (2020) 4 SCC 727

¶52

2 (2021) 1 SCC 733

¶53

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶54

¶55

injuries. Still respondent No.1 had registered only Non Cognizable Report. The wound certificate and other records show that the victim was assaulted. On respondent No.2 approaching the higher authority, respondent No.1 registered crime No.155/2021. Therefore there is primafacie material to attract Sections 18 and 18A of the Act.

¶56

In support of their contentions he relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others .

¶57

Out of the offences alleged against the appellants under IPC the major offence carries imprisonment up to seven years.

¶58

Learned High Court Government Pleader made available the records for perusal of this Court. They show that on 25.11.2021 at 8.15 p.m. respondent No.2 was examined at Government hospital Devanahalli with the history of assault. He had suffered two simple injuries. In

¶59

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶60

¶61

the said certificate, names of the assailants were not disclosed.

¶62

The records produced by the appellants show that at the first instance, respondent No.1 did not file the case under the provisions of the Act. When there was already a first information, in the form of Non Cognizable Report whether the second complaint filed in Crime No. 155/2021 can be called as information under Section 154 Cr.PC or whether that is hit by Section 162 of Cr.PC itself is doubtful.

¶63

Even in the first complaint the allegation of assault with knife is against the first appellant alone. In the second complaint, the allegation of assault with knife against the second appellant is made.

¶64

There is delay in filing second complaint. Admittedly, there are property disputes and in those disputes respondent No.2 is surety to the adversary of the appellants.

¶65

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶66

¶67

In the judgment relied by both counsel, the

¶68

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court has a duty to verify the complaint and records to find out whether the offence under the provisions of the Act are made out.

¶69

The larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahna Jalal Vs State of Kerala and Prathvi Raj Chauhan’s cases has held that when no prima-facie material under the Act is made out, bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act is not applicable.

¶70

In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the legal position, this Court of the opinion that, at this stage no prima-facie case to attract Section 3 of the Act is made out against the appellants. The offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶71

Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

¶72

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

¶73

CRL.A.No.97/2022

¶74

¶75

The appellants are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.155/2021 of Vishwanathapura Police Station. If they are arrested in the said case, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶76

(i) Appellants shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish two sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court for their appearance.

¶77

(iv) Appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required.

¶78

(ii) Appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise.

¶79

(iii) Appellant No.1 shall mark his attendance before Investigating Officer on alternative Sunday of each month till investigation is completed.

¶80

SD/JUDGE

¶81

PKN

R Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Nagaraju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.N.Chandru Vs Sri.Kudlu Ramakrishna

Sri. Bhuvanesh. M Vs Sri. K. v. Sundar Naidu

Jabiulla Alias Jabi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kamalesh Kumar Vs Sri Sesha Ram

Shri. C. R. Suresh Vs Mrs. S. Vijayalakshmi