Allowed

Mahesh R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024CRL.A/1564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of anticipatory bail for Accused Nos.2-4 in a case involving SC/ST (POA) Act and BNS offences arising from a bank recovery visit. The court found no caste-abuse allegations against these appellants and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 21.08.2024 refusing anticipatory bail set aside; appellants to be released on arrest subject to conditions incl. bond of Rs.1 lakh each with surety.

Mahesh R Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38480 CRL.A No. 1564 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1564 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHESH R., S/O N. RAMANNA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶10

N. RAMANNA S/O NANJAPPA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶12

LAKSHMI B., W/O N. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O NO. 26/A, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE 560 072

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOVINDARAJA NAGAR P.S., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:38480 CRL.A No. 1564 of 2024

¶21

BANGALORE 560 001

¶22

RAJINIKANTH H.C., S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O NO. 3, 1^ST MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, GARDEN ROAD, NAYANDAHALLI, MYSURU ROAD, BANGALORE 560 039

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHWATH C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.7335/2024.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned

¶30

High Court Government Pleader for the State and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-defacto complainant.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38480 CRL.A No. 1564 of 2024

¶32

Perused the material on record.

¶33

Appellants are arraigned as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively in Crime No.268/2024 of Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of Bahratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS' for short) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention fo Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST (POA) Act).

¶34

Above case is registered on a complaint lodged by one Rajanikanth.H.C, in respect of an incident which took place on 11.07.2024 at about 1.30 - 2.00 p.m.

¶35

The gist of the complaint is that, Accused No.2 had obtained a credit card of State Bank of India. He failed to make payment on proper time and there was a balance of Rs.3,14,421/-. The dues were not paid since 2020-21. The Bank authorities proceeded legally through court of law with Execution Petition No.1132/2024 and 1131/2024 filed in the Court of XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:38480 CRL.A No. 1564 of 2024

¶38

Judge, Bengaluru. Notice was issued to the accused on 29.06.2024 along with a warrant attached to the notice.

¶39

The complainant, appointed as a recovery agent, went to the house of accused at No.26, I Main, Ground Floor, Annapoorneshwari Nagar, Bengaluru on 11.07.2024 to recover the balance due by Accused No.2. It is alleged, at that time, Accused No.1 by name Chetan, i.e., brother of Accused No.2, abused the complainant in filthy language referring to his caste and insulted him and Accused No.1 and his parents assaulted and man-handled him etc.

¶40

Apprehending their arrest, Accused Nos.1 to 4 approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition was dismissed vide Order dated 21.08.2024. Hence, this appeal.

¶41

This appeal is preferred by Accused Nos.2 to 4. Complaint averments do not reveal allegations against these appellants that they have abused the complainant taking reference to his caste or that they have insulted

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:38480 CRL.A No. 1564 of 2024

¶44

him on the ground of he being a member of scheduled caste. Such allegations are made against Accused No.1.

¶45

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant is a total stranger to the appellants and he was appointed as a recovery agent on 11.07.2024, on which day, the alleged incident took place and therefore, the appellants knowing the caste of the complainant etc., cannot be believed.

¶46

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has contended that the complainant was working in the Bank since 2016 and Accused No.2 is having an account in the Bank and therefore, the accused were aware of the caste of the complainant. He contended that there is a prima facie case against the appellants, hence, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶47

As already observed, there are no allegations whatsoever against these appellants which would attract ingredients of offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Omnibus allegations are made that even these

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38480 CRL.A No. 1564 of 2024

¶49

appellants have assaulted and pushed the complainant and harassed him etc. According to the prosecution, the incident took place when the complainant went to the house of Accused No.2 to recover the payment due to the Bank. At this stage, no intention can be attributed to the appellants to commit the offence alleged, considering that the incident took place when the complainant himself had been to their house. In that view of the matter, the relief sought by the appellants can be granted by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Court of the 70^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Misc.No.7335/2024, is set aside. Appellants/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.268/2024 of Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, are ordered to be released in the event of their arrest, subject to the following conditions:

¶52