Allowed

Sri Mahendra R v. the State of Karnataka

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

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024CRL.A/1721/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused appealed rejection of his anticipatory bail in a case alleging caste abuse and criminal intimidation. The High Court held the complaint averments did not show abuse by caste name, so Section 18 bar was not attracted; it set aside the order and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on Rs.1,00,000 personal bond with one surety, subject to appearance within fifteen days and cooperation with investigati

Sri Mahendra R Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1721 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MAHENDRA R S/O RANGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT No.1810 23^RD CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD C BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

SRI MUNIANJINAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 277 GANGABHAVI COLONY SAHAKARANAGAR POST KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA – 560 092.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶17

(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE I.O IN CR.No.321/2024 OF KODIGEHALLI P.S. BENGALURU DISTRICT TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 351(2), 351(3) OF BNS ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014 AND 3(1)(b) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set

¶23

aside the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.7733/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), whereunder anticipatory bail petition of this appellant – accused sought in respect of crime No.321/2024 of Kodigehalli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Hereinafter referred to as “BNS” for brevity) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶26

and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as

¶27

“SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant– accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶29

Respondent No.2 has filed complaint stating that Survey No.165 measuring 31 guntas land has been granted to his grand father Mariyappa and litigation is pending in Civil Court and it is in possession of their family members. The appellant –accused has entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 in respect of the said property for use of his business on 10.07.2024 in the name of his mother –Smt. Narayanamma and he did not hand over the said documents to him or his mother therefore, respondent No.2 on 17.07.2024 at about 8.45a.m. asked the appellant –accused to give copy of the said documents and at that time the appellant –accused abused him stating that all holemadigas are same, their work is giving trouble to others and gave life threat.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶31

Respondent No.2 has filed complaint on 19.08.2024 and same came to be registered in Crime No.321/2024 of Kodigehalli Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellant–accused 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.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellant –accused would contend that the alleged incident has taken place on 17.07.2024 and complaint has been registered on 19.08.2024. There is delay of 32 days in filing complaint and no explanation has been stated in the complaint. He further submits that the appellant –accused has been granted interim bail by Special Court and at that time he cooperated with police in the investigation. On perusal of the averments of the complaint there is no allegation of abusing caste. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not attracted. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to appellant – accused.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

¶35

would contend that the appellant –accused abused respondent No.2 by taking his caste name and gave life threat. The appellant –accused is absconding and his presence is necessary for the investigation. Learned Special Judge has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail invoking bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶37

perused impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶38

The alleged incident has taken place on 17.07.2024 and complaint has been filed on 19.08.2024. There is delay of more than one month in filing the complaint and there is no explanation in the complaint for delay. On perusal of the averments of complaint what is stated by appellant –accused that all holemadigas are same, their work is giving trouble to others and therefore, there is civil litigation with regard to the property. At this stage it cannot be said that the said aspect is abusing

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶40

respondent No.2 by taking his caste name. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not attracted. The offence alleged against the appellant –accused is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The appellant –accused has made out grounds for setting aside impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶41

In the result, the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The appeal is allowed.

¶44

The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.7733/2024 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71 is set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail petition of this appellant –accused is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.321/2024 of Kodigehalli Police Station in event of his arrest subject to the following conditions:

¶45

i. The appellant -accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only)

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:44017 CRL.A No. 1721 of 2024

¶48

each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer /jurisdictional Court.

¶49

ii. The appellant -accused shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from today and execute bail bonds and furnish surety.

¶50

iii. The appellant -accused shall cooperate with Police in the Investigation. iv. The appellant -accused shall not threaten complainant and other prosecution witness.

¶51

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶52

DSP

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Mahendra R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahendra R 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. Muzammil Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Kiran @ Beggar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Vs State of Karnataka

Bharath @ Bharath Kumar Vs State by

Smt Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mr. Asfaqalam Shabbir