Allowed

Dr K S Mukunda Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024CRL.A/1817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directors of a hospital sought anticipatory bail for alleged caste abuse and criminal intimidation of a co-Director during a pharmacy dispute. The High Court found the allegations omnibus with no prima facie offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, set aside the Special Court's rejection and enlarged them on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: release on Rs.1,00,000 bond each with surety, appearance before IO within 15 days, cooperation with investigation, no threatening complainant or witnesses.

Dr K S Mukunda Rao Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1817 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. K S MUKUNDA RAO (MUKUNDA RAO IN FIR) AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SON OF LATE K H SATYANARAYANA RAO DIRECTOR OF PATANJALI HOSPITALS PVT. LTD., RESIDENT OF: No.6, GOKULA BHEEMASAMUDRA ROAD 2^ND STAGE, DHAVALGIRI EXTENSION CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶8

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

¶9

MRS. LATHA M RAO (LATHA IN FIR) WIFE OF Mr. SATYANARAYANA RAO MUKUNDA RAO KODAGANUR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS DIRECTOR OF PATANJALI HOSPITALS PVT. LTD., RESIDENT OF: No.6, GOKULA BHEEMASAMUDRA ROAD 2^ND STAGE, DHAVALGIRI EXTENSION CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶10

MR TARAKARI BASAPPA PRAKASH (PRAKASH B T IN FIR) AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SON OF MR. T BASAPPA RESIDENT OF: BASAVESHWARA NILAYA SADA SHIVA NAGARA, DVG ROAD

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶13

BEHIND J M COMFORTS CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI C V NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI AND ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE OFFICE OF THE TURUVANUR ROAD, MANIYUR CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA - 577 501. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶18

THOYAJAKSHI BAI S DIRECTOR OF PATANJALI HOSPITAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING OF No.3 DAVALAGIRI EXTENSION 2^ND STAGE, CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA - 577 501.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI K B K SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN RELATION TO FIR IN CR.No.127/2024 DATED 04.09.2024 (ANNEXURE-C) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r) (s) OF SC ST (POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 3(5), 351(2), 352 OF BNS ACT AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by appellant Nos.1 to 3 praying to set aside the order dated 05.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 1210/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of appellants sought in respect of Chitradurga Town Police Station crime No. 127/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as `SC ST Act’) and Section 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of BNS 2023 came to be rejected.

¶27

Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants – accused, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State.

¶28

Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint stating that since 25 years she has been working in the Pathanjali Hospital as a Director and Doctor. Since 10 -11 months other Directors had started to interfere in her work. One medical shop was in Pathanjali Hospital and accused and son of the complainant were partners and were running

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶30

the said medical shop. Since some days the accused, in order to kick out the complainant and her son from the medical shop, started to create problems. In this connection her son got issued a legal notice to the accused. On 30.08.2024, as a routine, after completing the work she went to her house and on the next day morning she came to work and saw that the medical shop and ICU unit was locked and empty medicine pockets were thrown out of the medical shop. Then the complainant enquired one Guru and watchman – Narayanappa and came to know that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had shifted the medicine to IC unit and locked the ICU unit. When she was enquiring about the same, the accused came there and abused her in filthy language by taking her caste name in front of the Hospital on a public road and abused her as Lambani and gave her life threat. The hospital staff pacified the quarrel. Said complaint filed by the complainant came to be registered in crime No. 127/2024 of Chitradurga Town Police Station. The appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the FIR had filed a

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶32

petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the alleged incident has taken place on 31.08.2024 at 05.00 am and complaint came to be filed on 04.09.2024 and there is a delay in filing the complaint and delay has not been explained. The accused persons have furnished the CCTV footage of the hospital wherein no incident has been recorded on the date and time mentioned in the complaint. Respondent No. 2 is working with the appellants since last 25 years and therefore there is no question of they abusing the complainant by taking the name of her caste. Respondent No. 2 has given the complaint against accused No. 1 on 19.03.2024 and it has been suitably replied by accused No. 1 by his reply dated 26.03.2024. Respondent No. 2 has filed a company petition and appellants have filed a suit against respondent No. 2 in O.S. No. 92/2024 seeking injunction restraining her from referring the patients to

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶35

some other hospital where she is treating the same patients and the jurisdictional Civil Court has granted exparte temporary injunction against respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 and her son have also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Pharmacy is inside the hospital building and it is not in public view. As the alleged incident is not in public view, offence under Section 3 of the SC ST Act is not attracted. On that point learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand and another reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 . Learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Balaji and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another, Crl.A. No. 118/2023 decided on 07.02.2023 wherein the anticipatory bail was granted as omnibus allegations were made against the accused persons. The parties have availed their remedies before the jurisdictional Courts and Tribunal and only to see that the appellants are harassed, a false complaint has been filed

¶36

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶37

against the appellants by the complainant by making omnibus allegations. The CCTV footage furnished by the appellants indicates that the alleged incident has not taken place. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶38

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the delay in filing the complaint has been explained in the complaint. The alleged incident has taken place on the road and it is in the view of public. As the alleged incident is in public view, offence Under Section 3 of the SC ST Act is attracted and bar under Section 18 of the SC ST Act is attracted. Investigation is in progress and what is the role of each of the accused has to be ascertained during investigation. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would contend that there is a long standing legal battle between the appellants and respondent No. 2. Respondent No.2 had filed a petition before the NCLT in the year 2023. The appellants who are the Directors in the Patanjali Hospital

¶40

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶41

are not allowing respondent No. 2 to discharge her duties and to work as a Director in the Hospital. On these grounds the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

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

¶43

Respondent No. 2 was working as a Doctor and

¶44

she is also a Director in the said Hospital since last 25 years along with the appellants. Considering the petition filed by respondent No.2 and her son before the NCLT and suit filed by the appellants in O.S. No. 92/2024 before the jurisdictional Civil Court, it appears, that there is long standing legal battle between the appellants and respondent No. 2. Said legal battle is prior to the alleged incident which is alleged to have taken place on 31.08.2024. Son of respondent No.2 is a partner in the pharmacy run in the building of Patanjali Hospital along with accused No.1 and others. A perusal of the averments of the complaint indicates that there is shifting of medicines in the pharmacy to ICU unit and enquiry in that

¶45

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶46

regard by respondent No.2 at 05.00 am on 31.08.2024. It is the contention of the appellants that they were not present at 05.00 am on 31.08.2024 at the Hospital and the averments of the complaint regarding the alleged incident are false. The appellants have furnished the CCTV footage to the Investigating Officer. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that CCTV footage does not contain the alleged incident which is alleged to have taken place on 31.08.2024 in the Hospital. As per the averments of the complaint there is omnibus allegation against accused Nos.1 to 3 that they have abused respondent No. 2 in filthy language taking the name of her caste as she belongs to Lambani caste. The accusation in the complaint against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 is omnibus. There is no mention of any specific allegation against each of the accused persons and therefore, it cannot be said that each of the accused person abused the complainant with the same words. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is prima facie case against the appellants for the offence under Section 3 of the SC ST Act.

¶47

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶48

Therefore, the Court can consider the petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. seeking anticipatory bail. The offences alleged against the accused are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The appellants are aged and working as Doctors and Directors in Patanjali Hospital. The appellants have undertaken to cooperate with the Police in the investigation. The appellants have made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail with conditions.

¶49

In the result, the following;

¶50

O R D E R

¶51

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 1210/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is set aside. Consequently petition filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail is allowed. The appellants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in crime No. 127/2024 of Chitradurga Town Police Station subject to the following conditions:

¶52

11 -

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:42536 CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024

¶54

i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶55