Allowed

Faizan Pasha @ Mohammed Faizan v. the State of Karnataka

Anticipatory bail – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2024CRL.A/1294/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of anticipatory bail in a caste-abuse and assault case arising from a parking dispute. Court held offence under Section 3 not attracted as complaint did not show knowledge of caste; Section 18 bar inapplicable; bail granted on parity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant to be released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including appearance before IO/Court within fifteen days.

Faizan Pasha @ Mohammed Faizan Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1294 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FAIZAN PASHA @ MOHAMMED FAIZAN S/O KHAJA NAYAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT SIDDARTHANAGARA, SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN CHIKKABALALPURA -562 101.

¶9

APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SHIDLAGHATTA POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 01

¶13

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

¶14

SRI SHIVAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.8, SIDDARTHANAGARA SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. A. VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R-1 SMT. G. M SUMITHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶19

TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DATED 23.05.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLPURA IN CRL.MISC.NO.328/2024 AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN THE CR.NO.102/2023 P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND U/S 92 OF THE PERSON WITH DISABILITY (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1994 AND ETC,.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by accused No.1 praying to set aside the order dated 23.05.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.328/2024 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, whereunder anticipatory bail petition of this appellant –accused No.1 sought in respect of crime No.102/2023 of Shidlghatta Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity), Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as “SC

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶25

and ST Act” for brevity) and Section 92 of the Person with Disability (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Disability Act” for brevity), came to be rejected.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – accused No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶27

Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint stating

¶28

that he was moving in motor cycle along with one Mani on the road and he asked accused No.1 to remove the vehicle parking on the road. Accused No.1 who is appellant herein has removed the vehicle parked on the road and when respondent No.2 and Mani proceeded further, it is alleged that the appellant –accused No.1 has abused them by touching their caste. At that time, accused Nos.2 to 4 came their, assaulted respondent No.2 and caused simple injuries. The said complaint has been registered in Crime No.102/2023 of Shidlghatta Town Police Station for

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶30

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act. The police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the appellant –accused No.1 and other accused for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act and Section 92 of the Disability Act. The appellant –accused No.1 apprehending his arrest has filed petition seeking anticipatory bail and same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant –accused No.1 would contend that accused Nos.2 to 4 who are similarly placed to that this appellant –accused No.1 have been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, this appellant – accused No.1 is also entitled to grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that there is no mention in the complaint that the appellant –accused No.1 was knowing respondent No.2 and that he belongs to

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶33

scheduled caste. Therefore, the allegation of appellant – accused No.1 abusing respondent No.2 is false. He further submits that as averments of the complaint so far as abusing respondent No.2 touching his caste is false and therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the SC and SC Act is not attracted and also the bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is also not attracted. Other offences alleged against appellant –accused No.1 are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prays to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant –accused No.1.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would contend that charge sheet materials indicate that this appellant –accused No.1 and other accused assaulted respondent No.2 who is handicap and dragged him and committed offences alleged against them. The appellant –accused No.1 has abused respondent No.2 by touching his caste and in view of the same, bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST is attracted.

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶36

Therefore, learned Session Judge has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail petition of this appellant –accused No.1. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that respondent No.2 is handicap person, he has

¶38

been abused and assaulted by this appellant –accused No.1 and other accused. The appellant –accused No.1 has abused him by touching his caste. Considering, the said aspect, learned Session Judge has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail petition of this appellant –accused No.1. With this, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶40

perused the impugned order and other charge sheet materials placed on record.

¶41

On perusal of the averments of the complaint

¶42

there is no mention that respondent No.2 and appellant – accused No.1 are known to each other and the appellant – accused No.1 is knowing caste of respondent No.2. The alleged incident has taken placed with regard to parking of

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶44

vehicle by the accused No.1 on the road and respondent No.2 asked him to remove the vehicle parked on the road.

¶45

As there is no averment in the complaint that the complainant -respondent No.2 and appellant –accused No.1 are known to each other and the appellant –accused No.1 is aware of caste respondent No.2. The averments that appellant –accused No.1 abusing respondent No.2 appears to be not true. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is case which attracts offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 is not attracted. Other offences alleged against this appellant –accused No.1 are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. In view of the above, the appellant – accused No.1 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶46

In the result, the following

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The appeal is allowed.

¶50

The impugned order dated 23.05.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.328/2024 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur is set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail petition of this appellant –accused No.1 is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in crime No.102/2023 of Shidlghatta Town Police Station Police Station in event of his arrest subject to the following conditions:

¶51

i. The appellant – accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

¶52

ii. The appellant – accused shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from today.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42819 CRL.A No. 1294 of 2024

¶54

iii. The appellant – accused shall not threaten complainant and prosecution witnesses. iv. The appellant – accused shall cooperate with Police in the Investigation. v. The appellant – accused shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

DSP

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Faizan Pasha @ Mohammed Faizan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizan Pasha @ Mohammed Faizan 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

Dilip @ Chikkaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr K S Mukunda Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Saddam S/O Musa Yadahalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt T Suma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S R Poornima Vs Dr S Raviprakash