Allowed

Hanumantha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2023CRL.A/1292/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the rejection of an anticipatory bail petition under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding no prima facie case existed for the specific caste offences under the Act, and granted bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure safety.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside anticipatory bail application allowed; appellants released on bail upon execution of bond and satisfaction of stringent conditions prohibiting threat or inducement.

Hanumantha Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1292 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMANTHA

¶10

S/O LATE SHIVARAYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶11

KASTHURI W/O HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶12

PRAKASH S/O HANUMANTHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT DOOR No.4-32/1, KAVOOR 4^TH MAIL ROAD MANGALURU – 575 015.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI LEELESH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAVOOR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

RANGAPPA BASAPPA PUJAR S/O BASAVARAJA POOJARA

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶21

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT JANATA FLAT DEVAGIRI POST AND VILLAGE NEAR DC OFFICE, HAVERI TALUK DISTRICT – 581 110.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1 R2 – SERVED)

¶24

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.MISC.No.530/2023 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DIRECTING RESPONDENT No.1 TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PERSONS ON BAIL IN CRIME No.60/2023 REGISTERED BY THE KAVOOR POLICE, MANGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 467, 471, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC R/W SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3, praying to set-aside the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.Case No.530/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru whereunder, the petition filed by the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.60/2023 of Kavoor Police Station, Mangaluru City for the

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶29

offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) , Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), came to be rejected.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

¶31

Respondent No.2 is physically present before the Court and prays not to grant bail for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3, as there is threat to him.

¶32

It is the case of the prosecution that, respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 06.06.2023 against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same came to be registered in Kavoor Police Station in Crime No.60/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 504 and 506

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶34

r/w Section 34 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Act.

¶35

In the said complaint, it is stated that the appellants

¶36

created the documents in order to grab the property of the complainant’s parents and when he went to ask them about the same, the appellants abused him taking his caste name and threatened him and abused him with filthy words. The appellants who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 apprehending their arrest, filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 would contend that the property which the complainant is claiming, belongs to one Smt.Girija, the second wife of the complainant’s father Sri.Basavaraja Poojara and it has been granted to her under Ashraya Yojana. He further submits that the said Smt.Girija and her husband Sri.Basavaraj Poojara executed Will and bequeathed the said property in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2. It is his further submission

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶39

that by virtue of the said Will, the appellants are residing in the said house. The dispute regarding the property has been given the colour of criminal complaint. The averments of the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 3 of the Act. The abuse stated to have been made as stated in Paragraph No.6 of the complaint is not in public view and there is no mention of any person present at the time of the alleged incident. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶40

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State would contend that there is creation of documents by the appellants in order to grab the property of the complainant’s parents. The complainant and his parents belonged to Scheduled Caste. The complaint averments reveal that the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 abused the complainant in vulgar words taking his caste

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶42

name which attracts the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. Therefore, the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C cannot be entertained as there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of three witnesses who have stated regarding grabbing of the property by the appellants. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

Respondent No.2 who is present before the Court submits that the property belongs to his parents and the appellants created the documents in order to grab the property and when he went to ask them, they abused in vulgar words taking his caste name and threatened him. He further submits that there is a threat to his life, if the appellants are granted anticipatory bail.

¶44

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State, this Court has perused the averments of the complaint and the impugned order.

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶46

As per the averments of the complaint, there is a dispute regarding the property between the complainant and the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3. The complainant claimed that the property belongs to his parents and after their death, he has inherited the same. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 claim the said property under a registered Will said to have been executed by the father and step-mother of the complainant.

¶47

The alleged abuse as stated in Paragraph No.6 of the complaint by the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3, taking his caste name in filthy words is an omnibus allegation. There is no specific allegation against each of the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3. At this stage, it cannot be said that all of the accused persons used the same words at the same time. The very aspect at this stage shows that there is no prima facie case against each of the appellants for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act. The other offences alleged against the appellants are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As there

¶48

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶49

is no prima facie case for the offence under Section 3 of the Act, the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act is not attracted. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. The apprehension of threat by the complainant can be made with, by imposing the stringent conditions;

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 23.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.530/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is set-aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C stands allowed and they are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.60/2023 of Kavoor Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

¶52

(i) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) each, with one

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:29308 CRL.A No. 1292 of 2023

¶55

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶56

(ii) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and execute the bail bonds and furnish the surety.

¶57

(iii) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶58

(iv) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶59

(v) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 3 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

JUDGE

Sd/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Hanumantha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja. a @ John Vs State of Karnataka by

Adeebulla Sharief Vs State by Kadugondanahalli Police

Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Dyamappa G @ Akash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nandheesh M K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gajendra Vs State of Karnataka