Allowed

Likith @ Nikhil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2023CRL.A/554/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, fearing the lower court erred in invoking the statutory bar under the SC/ST (POA) Act due to lack of specific allegations in the charge sheet regarding provisions 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), allowed the appeal. The Court set aside the lower order and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside anticipatory bail application set aside; petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowed on grant of bail subject to execution of bond with one surety.

Likith @ Nikhil Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LIKITH @ NIKHIL S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABUT 21 YEARS R/ NO. 279, 4^TH MAIN 12^TH CRSS KAVERIPURAM KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI GANAPATHI S SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BENGALURU BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

BASAVARAJU D S/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O No.279, 4^TH MAIN 12^TH CROSS KAVERIPURAM KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R D, HCGP FOR R1 R2-SERVED AND UREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE OR ANY OTHER CONCERNED POLICE TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.No.287/2022 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVILY AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN SPECIAL No.2780/2022, IN THE EVENT OF THE ARREST.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by appellant – accused No. 4 praying to set aside the order dated 16.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 12781/2022 by the LXX Additional City Civil

¶23

and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition filed by this appellant – accused No. 4 in Spl.C. No. 2780/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) came to be rejected.

¶24

Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant

¶25

– accused No. 4 and learned HCGP appearing for

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶27

respondent No.1 – State. Respondent No. 2 on service of notice remained absent and unrepresented.

¶28

Gist of the prosecution case is that on 23.07.2022 the appellant – accused No. 4 along with other accused, with a common intention, have picked up quarrel with complainant in connection with parking of vehicle and abused the complainant with reference to his caste and also made an attempt to commit murder by assaulting him with a dragger and caused injuries to the victim. Charge sheet came to be filed for offence under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act. The appellant who is arraigned as accused No. 4 apprehending his arrest filed Crl.Misc. No. 12781/2022 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned order which has been challenged in this appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for appellant – accused No. 4 would contend that no overt act is alleged against this appellant – accused No. 4 of assaulting the complainant. It

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶31

is his further submission that accused Nos.1 to 3 have already been granted bail by the trial Court. The allegation of assault is against accused Nos.1 to 3. The only allegation against this appellant – accused No. 4 is that he abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste and gave threat. As charge sheet is filed, the appellant – accused No. 4 is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

¶33

respondent No. 1 – State would contend that there is a specific allegation against this appellant – accused No. 4 and accused No. 3 of abusing in filthy words by taking the name of his caste. Considering this aspect the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order by invoking the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18(A)(2) of the Act. There are no grounds made out to set aside the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶35

impugned order and grant anticipatory bail to this appellant – accused No. 4. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

Even though there is an averment in the complaint that this appellant – accused No. 4 and accused No. 3 have abused the complainant in filthy words taking the name of caste the Investigating Officer has not invoked the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act in the charge sheet. Said averment in the complaint is omnibus allegation against appellant – accused No. 4 and accused No. 3. At this stage it cannot be said that accused Nos. 3 and 4, at the same time used the same words against the complainant. The compliant averments does not disclose what are the words used by each of accused Nos. 3 and 4 by taking the name of caste of the complainant. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are attracted. There are no allegations against this appellant – accused No. 4 of assault on the complainant. Without

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶38

considering all these aspects learned Special Judge has passed by the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. As there is no prima facie case made out for offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act bar contained under Sections 18 and 18(A)(2) of the Act is not attracted. Therefore petition filed under Section 438

¶39

Cr.P.C. can be entertained.

¶40

In the result, the following;

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

Appeal is allowed. The impugned order 16.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 12781/2022 by the LXX Additional

¶43

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The appellant – accused No. 4 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime No. 287/2022 of Kamakshipalya Police Station (Spl.C. No. 2780/2022) subject to following conditions:

¶44

I. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:27108 CRL.A No. 554 of 2023

¶46

(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the

¶47

like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶48

II. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within two weeks from today and execute the bail bond and furnish surety.

¶49

III. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶50

IV. Appellant – accused No. 4 shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted, and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

LRS

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Likith @ Nikhil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Likith @ Nikhil 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

Mr P S Nagendra Guptha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadisha @ Jagadisha Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Purushotham

Ajaykumar G v Vs Channakrishna Reddy

Sri. Sanketh. K. Vs State by Cubbonpark Police

Nagesha P Vs State by Narasimharaja Police Station