Vittal S/O Jagadish Barker Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST POA ACT 2015, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2024 AS ATTACHED IN BADAMI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.180/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) OF S.C ST (P.O.A) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN EVENT OF THE ARREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by accused No.4 praying to set aside the order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.620/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, whereunder the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant/ accused No.4 in respect of Badami Police Station in Crime No.180/2004 registered for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352 of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, came to be rejected.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused No.4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/ State. In spite of service of notice, respondent Nos.2 to 4 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶34

The case of the prosecution is that on

¶35

06.10.2024 at about 1:10 PM, when the complainant was

¶36

at the vegetable market, accused No.1 approached in his car and horned, asking the complainant to move aside. The complainant responded that he was already standing by the side of the road, enraged by this, accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language, pushed him to the ground and assaulted him and threatened to kill him. Later on, on the same day at 7:30 PM, when the complainant and other persons went to Badami Government Hospital for treatment, accused No.1 with an intention to kill the complainant, threw a Barry gate at the complainant, caused the injuries to his wrist and head. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have restrained the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 made him fall on the ground and pressed his neck with this they attempted to strangulate him. The accused Nos.2 and 4 supporting the other accused persons abused CW.1 in filthy words by touching his caste and accused No.4 assaulted CW.5 with a stone and caused simple injury.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶39

The appellant/ accused No.4 apprehending his

¶40

arrest has filed the petition before the Special Court and the same came to be rejected by an impugned order.

¶41

The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the allegation of abuse of CW.1 in filthy words by touching his caste is omnibus allegation against this appellant/ accused No.4. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that this appellant/ accused No.4 abused the complainant by touching his caste. He submits that CWs.1, 4 and 5 have sustained simple injuries. He contends that accused Nos.1 to 3 have been granted bail by this Court. He submits that as the chargesheet is filed, appellant/ accused No.4 is not required for custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant/ accused No.4.

¶42

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶43

Pleader for respondent No.1/ State would contend that CW.1 belongs to the Schedule Caste. There is an allegation

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶45

against this appellant/ accused No.4 of abusing CW.1 by taking his caste name in filthy words. There is a bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the said aspects, the learned Special Judge has rightly passed the impugned order. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the FIR, Complaint, charge sheet and impugned order.

¶47

On perusal of column No.17 of the chargesheet, the accusation against this appellant/ accused No.4 and accused No.2 is that on 06.10.2024, 7:15 PM when the complainant went to the Government Hospital for treatment at that time, the appellant/ accused No.4 and accused No.2 restrained him and abused him by taking his caste name in filthy words and thereafter, the appellant/ accused No.4 assaulted the CW.5 with a stone. The said abuse of complainant by this appellant/ accused No.4 and

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶50

accused No.2 is an omnibus allegation. At this stage, it cannot be said that both the appellant/ accused No.4 and accused No.2 have abused the complainant with the same words. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against this appellant/ accused No.4 for attracting an offence under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 does not attract. CWs.1, 4 and 5 have sustained simple injuries. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have already been granted regular bail. As the chargesheet is filed, appellant/ accused No.4 is not required for custodial introduction. Without considering these aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed an impugned order which requires interference of this Court.

¶51

In view of the above, the appellant/ accused No.4 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned

¶52

order and grant of anticipatory bail. In the result, the following;

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The appeal is allowed .

¶57

ii) The impugned order dated 30.12.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.620/2024 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, is set aside .

¶58

iii) The bail petition of the appellant/ accused No.4 stands allowed and he is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime

¶59

No.180/2024, subject to the following conditions:

¶60

a) The appellant/ accused No.4 shall executive a personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh] with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Court.

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5028 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2025

¶62

b) The appellant/ accused No.4

¶63

shall voluntarily appear before the Special Court within fifteen [15] days of this order.

¶64

c) The appellant/ accused No.4 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶65

d) The appellant/ accused No.4 shall appear before the Special Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and corporate for the speedy disposal of the case.

¶66

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶67

PJ/CT-ASC

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Vittal S/O Jagadish Barker v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vittal S/O Jagadish Barker v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraju @ B N Ramesh Vs State by v v Puram Police Station

Ameena W/O Basir Ahamad Muchale Vs the State of Karnataka

Mardanalli S/O Hanif Sab Hunchigida Vs Smt. Sana Begum W/O Mardan Ali Hunchigidada

Creative Sign Center by Its Partner Vs Shri. Guruprasad M Katti

Sri.Gogga Vs Sri.Vinayak

Smt. Nasrin W/O Akilahmed Dadwad Vs the State of Karnataka