Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Purushotham

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023CRL.A/754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal appeal filed by the State challenging an order granting anticipatory bail to an accused. The High Court held that specific allegations of caste-based abuse were missing against the accused, meaning the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act was not attracted. The appeal was dismissed, and the bail order was left in force. The case relies on the Prathvi Raj Chauhan judgment regarding anticipa

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Purushotham — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:26922 CRL.A No. 754 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIRISAVE POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI RENUKA RADHYA R D, HCGP)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

PURUSHOTHAM S/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O KABBALI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN – 573 116.

¶15

NAGARAJA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O KABBALI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SAGAR N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:26922 CRL.A No. 754 of 2022

¶19

¶20

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THIS APPEAL B. SET ASIDE AND CANCEL THE ORDER OF BAIL DATED 03.01.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.1599/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HASSAN THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED U/S.504, 341, 307, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) 2015 OF HIRISAVE POLICE STATION. C. DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT No.1 BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The State has preferred this appeal, praying to set-aside the order dated 03.01.2022, passed in Crl.Misc.No.1599/2021 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan and cancel the bail.

¶24

Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant – State and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶25

Respondent No.1 is accused No.2 in Crime No.154/2021 of Hirisave Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 504, 341, 307 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:26922 CRL.A No. 754 of 2022

¶27

3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶28

Respondent No.1 – accused No.2 apprehending his arrest in the said crime has filed Crl.Misc.No.1599/2021 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition came to be allowed and respondent No.1 has been granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order, the State is in appeal.

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the averments made in the complaint would clearly attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. As there is a bar under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act, the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C cannot be entertained.

¶31

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1

¶32

would contend that there is no specific allegation against respondent No.1 – accused No.2 in the complaint to

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:26922 CRL.A No. 754 of 2022

¶34

attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

¶35

In view of the said contention, it is to be ascertained

¶36

as to whether the averments of the complaint attracts the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act against respondent No.1 – accused No.2.

¶37

In the complaint, it is stated that there was a dispute between the complainant and accused No.1 – Sri.Umesha regarding compound wall and there was a quarrel earlier. It is further stated that on 19.11.2021 at about 12.10 pm., when the complainant and two others were proceeding in front of the School, at that time accused Nos.1 to 4 came near him and restrained him. At that time, accused No.1 – Sri.Umesha asked him why he has given complaint to Panchayath regarding the compound wall and made him to fall on the ground and sat on his chest and with an intention to kill him, pressed his neck. At that time two persons pacified the quarrel. At that time, respondent No.1 – accused No.2 and accused

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26922 CRL.A No. 754 of 2022

¶39

Nos.3 and 4 assaulted him with hands and abused him taking his caste name and threatened to kill him, if he quarrels with accused No.1 – Sri.Umesha.

¶40

The said allegation of abuse touching caste made in the complaint against accused Nos.2 to 4 is omnibus allegation. There is no specific allegation against each of the accused ie., accused Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, among accused Nos.2 to 4, it cannot be said that who has abused the complainant taking his caste name with what words. More so, in a copy of the charge sheet produced along with the appeal, in Column No.17, it is only alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have assaulted witness No.1 on his body and there is no accusation against respondent No.1 – accused No.2 of abusing the complainant touching his caste.

¶41

When there is no prima facie case made out to attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act is not attracted, in view of the decision of the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:26922 CRL.A No. 754 of 2022

¶44

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan

¶45

Vs. Union of India and Others reported in

¶46

(2020) 4 SCC 727.

¶47