Disposed

Charan J S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2024CRL.A/635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal appeal seeking anticipatory bail in SC/ST PoA Act proceedings, allowing a fresh petition before the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to file a fresh anticipatory bail petition before the Sessions Judge.

What the court decided

Charan J S Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40885 CRL.A No. 635 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHARAN J.S., S/O J.V. SURESH, AGED 29 YEARS, R/OF JOLDAL VILLAGE AND POST, VASTARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMANGALURU- 577 133

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. P.E. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHASHWATH S PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MALLANDURU POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

SMT. SUMITHRA W/O LATE SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶15

SMT. NETHRA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:40885 CRL.A No. 635 of 2024

¶17

SMT. RADHA, W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶18

SMT. SUSHEELA W/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶19

ALL ARE COOLIES, KALENAHALLI, JOLADAL VILLAGE, VASTHARE HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU KARNATAKA -577 133.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.131/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.10/2023 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST REGISTERED BY MALLANDURU POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s)3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND SECTIONS 504, 323, 324, 506 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, CHIKAMAGALURU.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:40885 CRL.A No. 635 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶29

Appellant is seeking to set aside the order dated 9.3.2023 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru and consequently to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.10/2023 registered at Mallanduru police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶30

FIR is registered against 6 persons, on a complaint lodged by one Sumithra w/o.Late Somaiah, in respect of an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 10.2.2023 at about 11.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. in Joldal village, Vastare Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk.

¶31

Initially, in Criminal Misc.No.131/2023, all the accused, including the appellant herein, sought anticipatory bail. The said petition was rejected on 9.3.2023 by the Sessions Court.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:40885 CRL.A No. 635 of 2024

¶34

Challenging the above order, the appellant along with other accused persons approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No.737/2023 and Criminal appeal No.1379/2023. Both the appeals were dismissed as 'not pressed'. Once again, the present appeal, which is filed challenging the very same order of rejection of anticipatory bail petitions, cannot be entertained. The appellant has not approached the Sessions Court subsequent to withdrawal of his appeal before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that charge sheet has been filed against only two accused, wherein the appellant herein is arrayed as accused no.2. He submits that accused no.1 has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of one Kallesh N.G., Doreraj.N and Ravikumar, said to be eye witnesses, to contend that they have not alleged that the accused has insulted or abused the complainant taking reference to his caste and therefore, offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 are not attracted.

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:40885 CRL.A No. 635 of 2024

¶37

¶38

The appellant/accused no.2 is permitted to file a fresh petition seeking anticipatory bail, if so advised, before the learned Sessions Judge in view of filing of charge sheet. If any such petition is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with law.

¶39

All the contentions are left open.

¶40

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶42

rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Charan J S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Charan J S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Sanjeev Kumar Vs State

Mohammed Latheef @ Abdul Latheef Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Gulwady Alias Tinku Vs State by

Sharath Babu L S Vs Smt. Megha

B.C.Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka by the

Sri Sathish Vs the State of Karnataka