Allowed

Sri Dharmanna Dharma S/O Nagalingappa Harijan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 May 2023CRL.A/100173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed three Criminal Appeals seeking anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act. Court held Section 18 had no bar as complainant failed to prove intentional humiliation in public view. Bail granted on personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to appellants in the event of arrest in Crime No.85/2022 on execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety, subject to conditions.

Sri Dharmanna Dharma S/O Nagalingappa Harijan Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100172 OF 2023

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100173 OF 2023

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100187 OF 2023

¶11

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100172 OF 2023

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI. HUSSAIN SAB S/O MALKESAB KOLI, AGE. 42 YRS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O HULIHYDER VILLAGE, TQ. KANAKAGIRI DIST. KOPPAL 583283.

¶14

Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA
J
MAMATHA Date:
2023.05.27
02:21:52
+0530

¶15

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

...APPELLANT

¶17

AND

¶18

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶19

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

¶20

2 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶21

DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

2 . SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O YANKAPPA TALWAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O HULIHYDER VILLAGE, TQ: KANAKAGIRI DIST. KOPPAL-583283

¶23

….RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT SEEKING TO GRANT HIM ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT KANAKAGIRI POLICE IN THE IN CRIME NO. 85/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)-(v-a) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT-2015 AND GRANT BAIL IN SO FAR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.58 IS CONCERNED.

¶26

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100173 OF 2023

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

1 . SRI DHARMANNA @ DHARMA S/O NAGALINGAPPA HARIJAN AGE. 22 YRS, OCC. COOLIE,

¶29

3 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶30

SRI. BHEEMANNA @ BHEEMARAJ

¶31

2 . S/O NAGALINGAPPA HARIJAN AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,

¶32

BOTH ARE R/O: HULIHYDER VILLAGE TQ. KANAKAGIRI DIST. KOPPAL – 583283

¶33

...APPELLANTS

¶34

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE)

¶35

AND

¶36

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶37

2 . SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O YANKAPPA TALWAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O. HULIHYDER VILLAGE, TQ. KANAKAGIRI DIST. KOPPAL-583283

¶38

……..RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

¶40

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14 A(2) OF SC/ST POA ACT SEEKING TO GRANT HIM ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT KANAKAGIRI POLICE IN THE IN CRIME NO. 85/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

¶41

4 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶42

UNDER SECTION U/S. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)-(v-a) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT-2015., & GRANT BAIL.

¶43

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100187 OF 2023

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O BASAPPA GADDI @ GUNDA AGE: 28 YRS, OCC. AGRI, R/O: H.NO.183, 4^TH WARD NEAR DURGADEVI TEMPLE HULIHYDER VILLAGE TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL-583283

¶46

…APPELLANT

¶47

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶50

SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O YANKAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRI. R/O HULIHYDER VILLAGE, TQ. KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL 583283

¶51

…RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 SERVED)

¶53

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT SEEKING TO GRANT HIM ANTICIPATORY BAIL & DIRECT RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THEM

¶54

5 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶55

ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN THE IN CRIME NO. 85/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC & U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND GRANT BAIL.

¶56

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

Appellant/accused No.58 filed Criminal Appeal No.100172/2023, appellant/accused No.51 and 53 filed Criminal Appeal No.100173/2023 and Criminal Appeal No.100187/2023 is filed by accused No.8 feeling aggrieved by the rejection of their anticipatory bail application by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Criminal Misc. No.234/2023, 204/2023 and 188/2023 by order dated 30.03.2023, 30.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 respectively.

¶59

Since all these appeals are arising out of same Crime No.85/2022 of Kanakagiri police station, they are taken up together for final disposal by this common judgment.

¶60

Parties to the appeals are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶61

6 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶62

On the strength of the complaint filed by Smt. Hampamma w/o Yankappa Talawar, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Cr.No.85/2022 of Kanakagiri police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 302, 427, 448, 504, 506, 109 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶63

The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 11.08.2022 at about 9 to 9.30 a.m., in Hulihyder, Tq: Kanakagiri of Koppal district, the complainant was in the house along with her husband, Yankappa Talawar and relatives Hanumamma Talawar, Eramma Talavar and Parashuram Talawar. At that time, all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons trespassed into the house of complainant and abused complainant in filthy language referring to her caste. They further dragged the complainant, Hanumamma and Eramma and assaulted Hanumamma and Parashuram with clubs and

¶64

7 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶65

thereafter dragged the husband of complainant out of the house and took him to Valmiki circle, where he was further assaulted by stone, club, rod and stabbed with knife due to which Yenkappa Talawar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Accused have also caused damage to the vehicles and house belonging to the complainant. On these allegations, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet.

¶66

Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed objections opposing grant of anticipatory bail to all these appellants on the premises that there are sufficient material evidence against the appellants. The accused were not available for the purpose of interrogation and if they are ordered to be released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶67

The anticipatory bail application filed by the appellants before the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Crl. Misc. 234/2023, 204/2023 and 188/2023 came to be rejected by order dated 30.03.2023, 30.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 respectively.

¶68

8 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶69

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶70

On careful perusal of the charge-sheet material, it

¶71

would go to show that the incident in question took place on 11.08.2022 at about 9 to 9.30 a.m., when the complainant was in the house. The complainant and her husband with relatives were physically assaulted and thereafter, the husband of complainant, Yankappa Talawar was carried to Valmiki Circle, where he was further assaulted by means of club, stone, iron rod and knife due to which he succumbed to the injuries sustained at the spot.

¶72

The first contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act to entertain the anticipatory bail application and trial Court was justified in rejecting the anticipatory bail application.

¶73

In this context of the matter, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in PRATHVI RAJ

¶74

CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2020) 4

¶75

SCC 727 , wherein it is observed at paragraph 32 as under:

¶76

“32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A

¶77

and anticipatory bail is concerned, the

¶78

9 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶79

judgment of Mishra J., has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the Court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.”

¶80

The co-ordinate bench of this Court in SUBBANNA

¶81

@ SUBRAMANI M. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE BY THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU

¶82

RURAL DISTRICT AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2021 KAR 515 by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan’s case has held that in a given case where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act, a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be entertained. However, it depends on the facts of each case. In view of principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is evident that there is no legal bar to entertain the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. if complainant does not make out a prima facie case

¶83

for applicability of the provisions of the Act.

¶84

10 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶85

Other than the allegations in the complaint that accused have abused by taking her caste with an intention to insult her in public view there are no any other material evidence prima facie to show at this stage that the alleged abusive words referred in the complaint were intended to humiliate the complainant in the public view. Therefore, keeping in mind the manner in which the incident took place between two groups and there is no material evidence to infer that there was intentional insult to humiliate the complainant in public view. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of the Act does not come in the way of entertaining the anticipatory bail petition.

¶86

The charge-sheet material would also go to show that initially the FIR was registered against 30 accused and the charge-sheet was filed against 59 accused. The identification of assailants involved in commission of offence alleged by the prosecution is based on the CCTV footage wherein it was copied in a pen drive given by Abdul Kasimsab Chimani, CW-94, to the Investigating Officer. The involvement of the remaining accused is based on the alleged voluntary statement said to have been

¶87

11 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶88

given by some of the accused which was recorded at different intervals.

¶89

The allegation against accused Nos.53 and 58 is that they are the members of unlawful assembly and they are charged with IPC offences and the provisions of the Act have been invoked. Accused No.51 is charged with only IPC offences. Accused No.8 is shown as absconding in the charge-sheet. Indisputably, the incident in question took place due to dispute over installation of Valmiki idol, between the group of complainant and the accused. The case and counter case on the said incident are filed. There is no other evidence to draw inference of insulting the complainant with an intention to insult her in public view. The IPC offences alleged against these appellants are bailable one and whether accused Nos.53 and 58 have abused the complainant by taking her caste to humiliate in public view is a matter of trial. This Court has granted bail to similarly placed accused in Crl.A.No.100084/2023 and Crl.A.No.100098/2023. Hence, under these circumstances, in my opinion, the appellants in all the three cases are entitled for anticipatory bail. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:

¶90

12 - CRL.A No. 100172 of 2023 C/W CRL.A No. 100173 of 2023, CRL.A No. 100187 of 2023

¶91

ORDER

¶92

Criminal Appeal No.100172/2023, Criminal Appeal No.100173/2023 and Criminal Appeal No.100187/2023 are hereby allowed.

¶93

The impugned order in Crl.Misc.No.234/2023, 204/2023 and 188/2023 dated 30.03.2023, 30.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 respectively passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, is set-aside.

¶94

The appellants/accused Nos.58, 51, 53 and 8 in Criminal Appeal Nos.100172/2023, 100173/2023 and 100187/2023 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.85/2022 of Kanakagiri Police Station on they executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for like-sum amount subject to following conditions:

¶95