Allowed

Abhi @ Abhishekh v. T v the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2024CRL.A/1732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by two accused persons against the rejection of their anticipatory bail petition under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The court held that the allegation of caste-based abuse was not specifically attributable to them, thus removing the procedural bar, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the anticipatory bail petition was set aside and the appellants were granted anticipatory bail under personal bond with conditions.

Abhi @ Abhishekh v T Vs the State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1732 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ABHI @ ABHISHEKH V T S/O V T THIMMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶9

SHIVU SHVIAPRASAD @ SHIVU S/O MANJANNA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS A K CASTE, COOLIE WORK.

¶10

BIOTH ARE R/AT MUCHAGUNTE VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 522.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

CHANDRANNA S/O BASAIAH

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶18

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PELARAHALTTY VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2024 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CRL.MISC.No.1044/2024 AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellants – accused

¶26

Nos. 2 and 4 praying to set aside the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1044/2024 by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4 sought in respect of Chitradurga Women Police Station crime No. 363/2024 registered for offence under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2),

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶28

189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyana Sanhita, 2023 (for short referred to as BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(v-a) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short referred to as SC ST (POA) Act’) came to be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for appellants – accused

¶30

Nos. 2 and 4 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. Inspite of service of notice No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶31

Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against

¶32

accused Nos. 1 to 5 stating that when he was going on motorcycle on 26.07.2024 along with one Basaiah at about 08.00 pm accused Nos. 1 to 5 were assaulting one Boraiah and at that time he pacified the quarrel and thereafter at about 08.30 pm when he was near Machugunte village bus stand accused Nos. 1 to 5 have stopped his bike, dragged him and abused him by taking his caste name and assaulted him with club, stones, hands and kicked him and

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶34

at that time others rescued him. Said complaint filed by respondent No.2 came to be registered in crime No. 363/2024 of Challakere Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the FIR apprehending their arrest had filed a petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4 would contend that the alleged incident has taken place on 26.07.2024 and complaint has been filed on 28.07.2024 and there is a delay of 2 days in filing the compliant. He further submits that respondent No.2 has sustained only simple injuries. He submits that the allegation of abuse taking his caste name is omni bus allegation and at this stage it cannot be said which of the accused have abused him taking his caste name and therefore there is no prima facie case to attract offence under Section 3 of SC ST (POA) Act. He further submits that bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶37

attracted. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4.

¶38

Per contra learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 – State would contend that appellant No.1 - accused No. 2 assaulted with stone on the head of respondent No. 2 and appellant No.2 – accused No. 4 assaulted respondent No.2 with hands and legs and caused injuries. Respondent No. 2 has sustained 3 simple injuries. Charge sheet has been filed which show prima facie case against appellants and other accused for the offences alleged against them. Considering the said aspect learned Special Judge has rightly rejected their anticipatory bail petition. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court has perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶41

The accusation against accused Nos.1 to 5 in

¶42

the complaint is that they stopped the bike of respondent No.2, dragged him and abused him taking the name of his caste and thereafter assaulted him. Which accused has abused him by taking his caste name has not been specifically stated. The allegation of abusing him is omni bus. It cannot be said at this stage that all the accused persons abused him with the same words at the same time. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted. The other allegation is assault by stone, hands and leg. Respondent No. 2 has sustained 3 simple injuries. Charge sheet has already been filed. Therefore, the appellants are not required for custodial interrogation. The appellants have made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶43

In the result, the following;

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1044/2024 by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is set aside. Consequently the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants stands allowed. The appellants are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in crime No. 363/2024 of Chitradurga Police Station subject to the following conditions;

¶47

i. The appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ jurisdictional Court.

¶48

ii. The appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer/ jurisdictional Court within 15 days from today.

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43295 CRL.A No. 1732 of 2024

¶50

iii. The appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶51

iv. The appellants – accused Nos. 2 and 4 shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶52

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶53

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Abhi @ Abhishekh v. T v the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhi @ Abhishekh v. T v the State of Karnataka by

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

Lokesh G Vs State of Karnataka

Lokesh. B. S. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prathap C Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Shivakumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sahil Alias Hujjuali Jafari @ Hujjuali S/O Yasarali Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Vs State of Karnataka