Partly allowed

Prasanna L a v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024CRL.A/2130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail. It distinguished One appellant (No.4) where specific allegations of caste abuse existed, dismissing his appeal. For others, lacking specific caste allegations, bail was granted subject to bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Appellants accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000. Appeal of Appellant accused No.4 dismissed.

Prasanna L a Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2130 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRASANNA L A S/O ANANDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶9

CHETHAN L S S/O SHEKASRAPPA L R AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶10

BHARATH L L S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶11

SHASHI @ SHASHIKUMAR L R S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

GURUKIRAN L M S/O L S MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶15

DEVARAJU L M S/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶16

RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR L C S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶17

DEEPAK L K S/O KAVIYAPPA L S AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶19

CHANDRANNA @ CHANDRAPPA K S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶20

PRADEEP L Y S/O YOGEESHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶21

NAGARAJA S/O LATE LAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶22

KRISHNA @ KRISHNA MURTHY L K S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶23

APPELLANTS No.1 TO 12 IS R/O LAKYA VILLAGE AND POST LAKYA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU

¶28

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶29

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 01.

¶30

PRAJWAL L M S/O MAHADEVA L R AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶31

R/O LAKYA VILLAGE AND POST

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶34

LAKYA HOBLI

¶35

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU CRL.MISC.No.556/2024 CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANTS IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST ON BAIL IN THE CASE REGISTERED BY CHIKKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CR.No.292/2024 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 352, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 189(2), 191(2), 190 OF BNS AND SECTION 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF SC AND ST(POA) 1989 AND ETC.,

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

This appeal is filed by appellants –accused Nos.1 to

¶43

4, 6 and 8 to 14 praying to set aside the order dated 26.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.556/2024 by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, whereunder anticipatory bail petition of these appellants sought in respect of Crime No.292/2024 of the Rural Police, Station Chikkamagaluru registered for

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶45

offences punishable under Sections 352, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 189(2), 192(2) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS” for brevity and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred as to “SC and ST Act” for brevity) came to be rejected.

¶46

Heard learned counsel for appellants –accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 to 14 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶47

Respondent No.2 has filed complaint stating that on 18.09.2024 at Lakya Village, a meeting was held with regard to immersion of Goddess Gowramma in which people from all the community had gathered. One Mahadeva and Parashuram who belong to Adi Karnataka community also attended said meeting. In the said meeting, Parashuram asked about the date scheduled for immersion celebration of Sri. Gowramma. At that time, the

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶49

accused No.2-Chethan, Accused No.3- Bharath who belong to Uppara Community and the accused No.1-Prasanna, who belongs to Besta community questioned them as to why they should disclose the details of immersion of Gowramma to them and in turn asked them whether they could give details of accounts of Salu Hunasemaradamma Temple and when aforesaid Mahadeva, who is the father of the informant questioned them as to why they were raising said issue at that time, the accused No.1 to 3 abused them by using foul words by touching the name of their caste and at that time, the villagers who had gathered there for discussion had pacified them. Later on 22.09.2024, when the informant and his friends by name Shivakumar, Nuthan, Tharun, Suman, Chandrashekar and Arun were proceeding near the circle at Lakya Village, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 i.e., appellant Nos.1 to 3 stared at them and when they questioned the accused in the said regard, a verbal fight took place between them and again it was pacified by the villagers. Further on the same day at about 10.00 p.m, appellant No.2 called the complainant

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶51

party to Lakya circle and therein the appellants Nos.1 to 3 abused and assaulted them with hands and then they were pacified by the villagers.

¶52

It is further alleged by the informant that on 23.09.2024 at about 9.30 p.m, when he and his friends viz. Shivakumar, Nuthan, Arunkumar, Shashank were proceeding in the car belonging to Nutan towards bus stand near Bootappanagudi, the appellant No.4 -accused No.4 shouted on seeing them. When the informant and his friends got down from the car, the accused No.4 abused them in filthy language by taking out their caste and slapped the informant on his cheek and assaulted on his head with a sword. Accused Nos.3 and 5 assaulted Shivakumar with clubs on his left hand, back and waist, accused Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 assaulted Nuthan with hands and clubs. Accused Nos.4, 9, 3 and 10 assaulted Arunkumar with hands on his person and accused Nos.11 to 14 assaulted Shashank with hands and clubs. When the informant and his friends were about to leave the place,

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶54

appellants pelted stones on them and abused them in filthy language by touching the name of their caste and also chased them. They also caused damage to the autorickshaw belonging to Umesh, motor bike belonging to one Rangaswamy and the mobile of Shashikumar, who belong to a scheduled caste. When they pulled the shirt of Nuthan, the gold chain worn by him had fell down. Thereafter, all the accused went to the street of complainant party and damaged the water barrel kept in front of their house. With these allegations, respondent No.2 has filed complaint against the appellants.

¶55

The said complaint of respondent No.2 came to be registered in Crime No.292/2024 of the Rural Police, Station Chikkamagaluru for aforesaid offences. Appellants –accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 to 14 apprehending their arrest along with accused Nos.5 and 7 have filed Crl.Misc.No.556/2024 seeking anticipatory bail and same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶57

Learned counsel for appellants –accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 to 14 would contend that there is no specific allegation against each of appellants abusing the complainant by touching his caste. The allegation of abuse is omnibus allegation. The injured has sustained simple injuries. Counter case came to be registered on the complaint filed by appellant No.1 –accused No.1 against 14 persons in Crime No.293/2024. In the counter complaint, anticipatory bail has been granted to 12 accused persons. He further submits that abuse by accused No.4 by touching caste is not in public view. Without considering all these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has rejected anticipatory bail petition of these appellants by impugned order which requires interference by this Court. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to appellants –accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 to 14.

¶58

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 –State would contend that there is case and counter case. Appellants have abused

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶60

the complainant by touching his caste name which attracts offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act, as there is bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the SC and ST Act, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected anticipatory bail petition. He submits that investigation is going on. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶61

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record.

¶62

On perusal of averments of the complaint, there is specific allegation against appellant No.4 –accused No.4 abusing the complainant by taking his caste name. The said averment clearly attracts offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. As offence under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act is attracted, there is bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act. Considering the said aspect, learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected anticipatory bail petition of accused No.4 who is appellant No.4 herein.

¶63

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶64

The accusation against other appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 of abusing complainant is omnibus allegation. There is no specific allegation of each of accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 abusing complainant by touching his caste. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 have specifically abused the complainant by taking his caste name. Therefore, at this stage there is no prima facie case against appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 for offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC and ST Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC and ST Act is not attracted against them. Other offences alleged against them are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The injured has sustained simple injuries. 12 accused persons in counter case have been granted anticipatory bail. Considering all these aspects, appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 are made out case for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶65

In the result, the following

¶66

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) The appeal by appellant No.4 –accused No. 4 is dismissed.

¶69

ii) The appeal by appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 is allowed.

¶70

iii) The impugned order dated 26.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.556/2024 by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru is set aside so far as appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 are concerned.

¶71

iv) Consequently, appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 are granted anticipatory bail in crime No.292/2024 of Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru in the event of their arrest subject to the following conditions:

¶72

i. Appellants -accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of

¶73

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:49682 CRL.A No. 2130 of 2024

¶74

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

¶75

ii. Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within 01 week from the receipt of certified copy of this order and execute personal bond and furnish surety.

¶76

iii. Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 shall cooperate with Police in the Investigation.

¶77

iv. Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 8 to 14 shall not tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶80

DSP

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Prasanna L a v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna L a v. 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

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Manjunatha Reddy @ Manju Vs State of Karnataka

Shankar M Vs State of Karnataka

Mantesh S/O Ningappa Sharanappanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Kalakappa Marad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Padma Betageri W/O. Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka