Allowed

Sri. Shivanna, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024CRL.A/2241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 against rejection of anticipatory bail in a caste-atrocity case arising from denial of temple entry. The High Court found no specific allegations of caste-name abuse attracting Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, held the Section 18 bar inapplicable, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

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

Sri. Shivanna, Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 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. 2241 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGE 69 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN: AADHAR CARD PRODUCED) WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 50 YEARS IN CRL.MISC. No.1188/2024.

¶10

SRI MADESHA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 58 YEARS IN CRL.MISC. No.1188/2024.

¶11

SRI RAJEGOWDA

¶12

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

¶13

S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 58 YEARS IN CRL.MISC. No.1188/2024.

¶14

APPELLANTS No.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT BIDARURU VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKAGODU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 130.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KONANUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.

¶20

GANESHA

¶21

S/O SRI GURUVAIAH AGED 32 YEARS RESIDING AT BIDARURU VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI, ARAKALGODU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 130.

¶22

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O SRI GURUVAIAH AGED 55 YEARS RESIDING AT BIDARURU VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI, ARAKALGODU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 130.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 & R 3 – SERVED (PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT)

¶25

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THEM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(t), 3(1)(za)(C), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE ATROCITIES ACT, R/W SECTION 115(2), 127(1), 190, 351(2) AND 352 OF IPC IN CR.No.213/2024 REGISTERED BY THE KONANUR POLICE, ARKALAGUD CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5

¶31

praying to set aside the order dated 15.11.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1188/2024 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants sought in respect of crime No. 213/2024 of Konanur Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(1), 352, 351(2), 190 of Bharatiya Nyana Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as `BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(1)(za)(C) of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the SC ST (POA) Act’) came to be rejected.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for appellants – accused and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 – State. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared physically before the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶35

Court and submitted that they have no objection for grant

¶36

of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶37

3. Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint stating

¶38

that on 05.11.2024, at about 03.30 pm, she had gone to Basaveshwara temple at Bidaruru village along with her son and family members to perform pooja in the temple. In the temple, the priest – accused No.1, stopped the complainant and her son and told that they belong to lower caste and they should not come till there. So saying, he pulled son of the complainant out side the temple. Shivanna – accused No. 2 who was standing there was holding a club and abused them by taking the name of their caste, assaulted with club and threatened that he would take out their life and committed atrocity. At that time local elders intervened and pacified them. They got scared and went home. That on 06.11.2024 Annaiah conveyed panchayat and accused Nos. 3 to 5 were panchayathdars and they questioned the son of complainant as to why he had gone inside the temple. Son

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶40

of the complainant informed them that he was residing in Bengaluru and for peace of mind he had come to perform pooja on that day in the grama temple and there is no fault on his part. He had requested them to give permission to go inside the temple like others. Accused No.3 told that if they permit him to go inside the temple

¶41

the entire SC ST community people will go inside the temple and the temple will become impure and it will not be good for the village. The other panchayatdars informed that they cannot be permitted to go inside the temple and if they go inside the temple, they will have to face the consequences. That on 08.11.2024 they were not called for utsava of the village deity and villagers of other caste performed the utsava and in front of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar board, they danced and told that they cannot take anything from them and abused them in filthy language and took out procession. Some miscreants belonging to other community put cow dung to the name board of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and had insulted them. On the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 a case came to be

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶43

registered against the appellants for the offence alleged against them. The appellants, apprehending their arrest, filed anticipatory bail petition and same came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶44

Learned counsel for appellants - accused would contend that appellant No. 1 - accused No. 2 is insane and he is not capable of standing on his own and therefore, the allegation of assault by him with club is false. He submits that the allegation of abuse by accused No.2 by taking the name of caste does not contain any specific words and therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that it attracts offence under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act. He further submits that the allegation against accused Nos. 3 and 5 is only omnibus allegation. He submits that accused No. 3 is stated to have told the complainant that if they enter the temple it becomes impure and that does not attract any offence. Considering the said aspect, the bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted. With

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶46

this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.

¶47

Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that a

¶48

plain reading of the averments of the complaint indicates that the appellants abused the complainant and her son by touching the name of their caste and restrained them from

¶49

entering the temple and there is a prima facie case against them for offence under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act. As there is bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act, learned Special Court has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by the appellants. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶50

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

¶51

The incident has taken place on 05.11.2024 and 06.11.2024 and complaint came to be filed on 09.11.2024

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶53

and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Averments of the complaint indicate that appellant No. 1 – accused No. 2 was holding a club and in the name of caste he abused the complainant and her son and threatened to kill them. With what words he abused the complainant and her son has not been stated in the complaint. Therefore, it cannot

¶54

be said at this stage that there is a prima facie case against appellant No.1 - accused No. 2 for offence under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act.

¶55

Accused Nos. 3 and 5 are panchayatdars. They

¶56

are stated to have enquired the complainant and her son as to why they entered the temple. At that time accused No. 3 is stated to have told the son of the complainant that if he enters the temple it becomes impure. Said averment, at this stage, cannot be said to attract offence under Section 3 of the SC ST (POA) Act. The accusation against accused No. 5 is that he only asked the complainant and her son as to why they entered the temple. There is no accusation against accused No. 5 of

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶58

abusing the complainant and her son by taking their caste name. Therefore, it cannot be said that at this stage offence under Section 3 of SC ST (POA) Act is attracted against him. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of the SC ST (POA) Act is not attracted. More so, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - complainant and her son who are present before this Court submit no objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Considering these aspects, the appellants have made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶59

9. In the result, the following;

¶60

O R D E R

¶61

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 1188/2024 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, is set aside. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition of the appellants stands allowed. The appellants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:52356 CRL.A No. 2241 of 2024

¶64

crime No. 213/2024 of Police Station subject to the

¶65

following conditions:

¶66

i. The appellants – accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶67

ii. The appellants – accused shall voluntary appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

¶68