Allowed

Parashuram S/O. Bhimasen Shingri v. State

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023CRL.A/100460/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed the appellant's prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order rejecting the petition, citing the appellant's status as a Government servant available for trial and noting the offences did not attract death or life imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; appellant released on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 upon arrest, subject to non-interference with witnesses and attendance in Court.

Parashuram S/O. Bhimasen Shingri Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100460 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PARASHURAM S/O BHIMASEN SHINGRI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. SHIRESTEDAR, R/O. OFFICE OF TAHASHILDAR, GAJENDRAGAD, TQ. GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101, KARNATAKA.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANKIT RAMESH DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BADAMI POLICE STATION, BADAMI CIRCLE, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, ALSO R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate:2023.11.1712:57:08 +0530

¶14

VENKATESH S. MURANAL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR, R/O. DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, BAGALKOT-587101, KARNATAKA.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14A(2) OF SC/ST ACT, SEEKING TO GRANT/ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IN BADAMI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.80/2022 FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 3(1)(q), SC ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, U/SEC. 5(A), 5(B), 6(a) OF KARNATAKA SC ST AND OTHER B.C. (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT) AND U/SEC. 198, 109, 199, 420 OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by accused No.4 praying to setaside the order dated 05.08.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.378/2023 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot where under anticipatory bail petition of the appellant-accused No.4 sought in respect of Badami Police Station Crime No.80/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 199, 420, 109 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and Section 3 (1) (q) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 5(A), 5(B) and 6(A) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990, came to be rejected.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶25

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that one Sri Venkatesh S.Muranal, Police Inspector, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bagalkot has filed a suo-muto complaint against accused Nos.1 to 6 stating that, accused Nos.1 to 3 all are residents of Jalihal, Badami taluk originally belong to Raja Bhoyi (Ambiger) caste, still then, on 08.02.2017, 24.10.2021, 16.10.2008 and 22.08.1999 by furnighing false information and making false declaration before Tahashildar, Badami and obtained Hindu Bhovi scheduled caste certificates and thereby cheated the Government and the real scheduled caste people. Accused No.4 is the then Tahashildar, Badami who has issued the caste certificate, accused No.5 is the then Revenue Inspector and accused No.6 is the then Village Accountant without making proper local enquiry for issuing the scheduled caste certificates to accused Nos.1 to 3. The charge-sheet came to be filed against accused persons including petitioner-accused No.4 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Section 3 (1) (q) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶29

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 5(A), 5(B) and 6(A) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990. The appellant-accused No.4 apprehending his arrest filed Crl.Misc.No.378/2023 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant-accused No.4 would contend that the appellant-accused No.4 was working as in-charge Tahasildar, Grade-II and he issued caste certificate based on the report of accused No.5Revenue Inspector and accused No.6-Village Accountant. There was no any intentional act of this appellant-accused No.4 issuing caste certificate. The offence under Section 3 (1) (q) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 5(A) and 6(A) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 does not attract against this appellant-

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶32

accused No.4. The offence which attracts against the appellant-accused No.4 as per the charge-sheet is Section 5(B) of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Act, 1990 and the punishment provided for the same is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend up to two years. He contends that petitioner being a Government servant is available for any further enquiry and he will attend the Court on all the dates of hearing. The Trial Court without looking into the charge-sheet materials making technical observations that the designation of the appellant as shown in the cause title and as shown in the charge-sheet is different and has rejected his petition. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant-accused No.4.

¶33

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner being in-charge of Tahashildar Grade II has duty to ascertain the caste of the applicants prior to the issue of the certificate. The

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶35

charge sheet material shows the prima facie case against this appellant/accused for the offences alleged. Considering the same, the trial Court has rightly rejected the petition. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.4 and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the impugned order and charge sheet material.

¶37

As per the charge sheet column No.12 this appellant/accused No.4 was working as Tahashidar GradeII (in-charge) of Badami, at the time of alleged offence and now he is working as Sheristedar in Tahashidar officer in Gajendragad. Trial Court did not considered the above aspects and erred in observing that the learned counsel for the appellant did not clarify with regard to designation of the appellant/accused No.4. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused No.4 are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The appellant/accused No.4 is Government servant. He can be secured easily for trial. Without considering these aspects, learned Sessions

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13180 CRL.A No. 100460 of 2023

¶40

Court has passed the impugned order which requires interference of this Court. Appellant/accused No.4 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed.

¶43

The impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc.No.378/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot is set aside. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant/accused No.4 is allowed.

¶44

The appellant/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.80/2022 of Badami, Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶45