Allowed

Ramesh, v. State by Hadadi Police

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024CRL.A/2214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five accused sought anticipatory bail in a caste-abuse and assault case. Holding the allegations against them omnibus and the Section 18 SC/ST Act bar inapplicable, and noting offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellants ordered released on anticipatory bail on Rs.1,00,000 personal bond each with surety, subject to conditions of co-operation and not threatening witnesses.

Ramesh, Vs State by Hadadi Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2214 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶9

SHIVU R S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶10

SUDEEP @ SANDEEP S/O MURTHEPPA H AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST.

¶11

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

¶12

MANJUNATH G S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS AGRICULTURIST.

¶13

SUHAS K S/O KUMAR G @ RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT MAHADEVIPURA VILLAGE BELAVANURU HOBALI, DAVANGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI C N RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY HADADI POLICE DAVANGERE, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶19

VARUNKUMAR S/O NAGARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT ANEKALLU VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI B NAGENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 2^nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANAGERE AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME No.159/2024 OF HADADI POLICE, DAVANAGERE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 190 OF BNS AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s),3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 praying to set-aside the order dated 19.11.2024 passed in

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶28

Crl.Misc.No.1107/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 sought in respect of Crime No.159/2024 of Hadadi Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 r/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyata Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”), came to be rejected.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not present.

¶30

Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint stating that he and his brother Sri.Arun Kumar came from Bengaluru to their native for performing pooja on 01.11.2024. At about 9.30 pm after the pooja, when the complainant left

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶32

his mother-in-law to the village of Mahadevipura and while coming back near Mahadevipura cross, all the accused persons obstructed him and asked him to get cigarette for them and when the complainant refused to bring cigarette to them, they abused him by taking his caste name and they dragged him from his bike. Brother of the complainant came to the spot and the accused persons also abused him with reference to his caste and the accused persons assaulted the complainant’s brother with coconut branch and with club on his right shoulder. When the complainant tried to rescue his brother, the accused persons assaulted him and his brother with their hands and legs and they knocked them down to the earth and assaulted them. At the time of the said incident, the neck chain of the complainant’s brother was lost and the complainant’s brother suffered fracture and he was taken to C.G.Hospital for treatment and thereafter, he filed the complaint. The said complaint filed by respondent No.2 came to be registered in Crime No.159/2024 of Hadadi Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellants –

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶34

accused Nos.1 to 5 apprehending their arrest had filed the application seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants – accused Nos.1

¶36

to 5 would contend that the alleged incident had taken place on 01.11.2024 and the complaint has been filed on 03.11.2024 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. The allegation made in the complaint are omnibus allegations against the accused persons and at this stage, it cannot be said that each of the accused persons had abused the complainant and his brother taking their caste name. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case for the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, to attract the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. Without considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference of this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶38

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State would contend that the delay has been explained in the complaint stating that the complainant took treatment in the hospital and after getting treatment for him, he filed the complaint. The alleged incident had taken place in the public view. The averments of the complaint clearly attracts the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act and therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is attracted. Considering the said aspect, the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition by the impugned order. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned order, complaint, F.I.R and the other materials placed on record.

¶40

The accusation in the complaint against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 and three others is that they abused the complainant and his elder brother

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶43

Sri.Arun Kumar taking their caste name and assaulted them with hands and assaulted brother of the complainant with coconut stem and caused injuries. Considering the said averments, the allegations against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 are omnibus allegations. At this stage, it cannot be said that each of the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 have abused the complainant and his brother taking their caste name and each of the accused person assaulted them. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is attracted against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, the bar under section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted. The other offences alleged against the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 have undertaken to co-operate with the police for investigation. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 have made out grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the following;

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1107/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere is set-aside. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 stands allowed. The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.159/2024 of Hadadi Police Station, subject to the following conditions;

¶47

(i) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 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.

¶48

(ii) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute the bail bonds and furnish sureties.

¶49

(iii) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 shall co-operate with the police for the investigation.

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:52644 CRL.A No. 2214 of 2024

¶51

(iv) The appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶52

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶53

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Ramesh, v. State by Hadadi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh, v. State by Hadadi Police

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

C N Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sudeep a Vs State by K R Puram Police Station

Sri.Mahantesh Vs State by Police Inspector

Shri Venugopal Thilak S/O Srinivas Gulapalli Vs State of Karnataka

Shiva Pramod Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayarama Vs the State of Karnataka