Dismissed

Sri.Mahantesh v. State by Police Inspector

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024CRL.A/2105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against the Special Judge's rejection of an anticipatory bail petition. Upholding the High Court's view that the alleged caste-abuse incidents occurred in a public view, ruling that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act applies, withstanding the appellant's contention that the places were private.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Anticipatory bail petition not set aside. Section 18 bar stands attracted.

Sri.Mahantesh Vs State by Police Inspector — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2105 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MAHANTESH S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BALENAHALLY VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK – 572 143.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI KANTHARAJAPPA M G, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE HIRIYUR SUB DIVISOIN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. REP. BY HIGH COURT SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

GANGADHARA B N S/O LATE NALLO OBANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: GRAMA SAHAYAKA R/AT BALENAHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 143.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI A VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL 2^nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CRL.MISC.No.1335/2024 DATED 28.10.2024 AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CRIME No. 426/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 352, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2) OF BNS 2023 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 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 the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 1335/2024 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant - accused sought in respect of crime No. 426/2024 of Hiriyur Rural Police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 352, 125(2), 115(2), 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶25

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `SC ST (POA) Act’) came to be rejected.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is not present.

¶27

Case of the prosecution is that the complainant had taken the land of one Jayadevappa on lease and grown groundnut and maize crop in the said land. He used to go to the land daily to protect the crop. That on 06.10.2024 at 05.30 pm complainant and his son Thippeswamy had been to the land. At that time, the appellant - accused came there and picked the groundnut crop and the complainant asked him not to pick the groundnut crop. At that time the appellant - accused abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of his caste and persons of the neighboring lands pacified the quarrel. On the same day, complainant and his son were going in the village at 06.00 pm in front of Government school and the appellant - accused came there and wrongfully restrained him and abused in filthy

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶29

language by taking his caste name and bit the right finger with teeth and then bit the left thumb of the complainant and thereby his one teeth was broken. At that time wife, son of complainant and other persons pacified the quarrel. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant a case came to be registered by the Hiriyur Rural Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellant - accused apprehending his arrest filed anticipatory bail petition and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶30

Learned counsel for appellant - accused would contend that the alleged incident had taken place at 05.30 pm in the land of the complainant and it is not a place in public view. He further submits that the second incident had taken place near the Government school and at the time of the incident no public were present and persons came to the spot only after the incident and therefore, the incident has not taken place in public view. Therefore, offence under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted and bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶32

is not attracted. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant - accused.

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that there is specific averment in the complaint that appellant - accused abused the complainant by taking his caste name in filthy language in his land and also near the Government School and bit his hand and 4 – 5 persons pacified the quarrel. He submits that investigation is in progress. He further submits that averment in the complaint that 4 – 5 persons pacified the quarrel itself indicates that the incident had taken place in public view. Considering all these aspects learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant - accused by invoking bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

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

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶36

A perusal of the averments of the complaint

¶37

indicates that the incident had taken place at 2 places on 06.10.2024. The first incident had taken place at 05.30 pm in the land of the complainant and at that place the appellant - accused abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of his caste and pulled him and at that time son of the complainant and one Devaraj of neighboring land pacified the quarrel. The other incident had taken place at 06.00 pm near Government school where the appellant - accused abused the complainant in filthy language by taking his caste name and bit his hand and fingers. At that time 4 -5 persons pacified the quarrel. In both the places of incident there were people and therefore it can be said that the incidents have taken place in public view. Considering the averments of the complaint there is a prima facie case against the appellant - accused for offence under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is attracted. Considering the said aspect learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:52382 CRL.A No. 2105 of 2024

¶40

petition of the appellant – accused by invoking bar under

¶41

Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and grant anticipatory bail

¶42

to the appellant - accused.

¶43

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶45

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri.Mahantesh v. State by Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Mahantesh v. State by Police Inspector

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

Sri H v Narayanareddy Vs Sri N Venkatachalapathy

Sri. Sandeepa. K. L. Vs State of Karnataka by

M/S Trishul Buildtech and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. Shivanna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudeep a Vs State by K R Puram Police Station

C N Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka