Sri Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.56/2025 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.05/2025) PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CASES UNDER THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT AND I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT RAICHUR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NO.2, 4, 10, 12 AND 13 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 05/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR CASES UNDER THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT AND I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS U/SEC. 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 119, 352, 351(2) R/W 190 OF BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT BILL 2015, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT YAPALADINNI P.S.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶31

This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.2, 4, 10, 12 and 13 being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.56/2025 by the learned

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1499 CRL.A No. 200052 of 2025

¶33

Special Court for Cases under the SC and ST (POA) Act

¶34

and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur.

¶35

Brief facts of the case are:

¶36

It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶37

complainant has stated in his complaint that he is the resident of Sarjapur village, Raichur District and he is an agriculturist by profession. It is stated in the complaint that the land bearing Survey No.57, measuring 28 acres 6 guntas of Kortipli village, Raichur district was a Government land. There is a dispute between the complainant and accused No.1 – Yallappa, in respect of the said land which was pending before various authorities. It is further stated that the Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant said to have directed accused No.1 – Yallappa not to cultivate the Government land. In spite of direction issued to said Yallappa not to cultivate the land, the said Yallappa and his associates were cultivating the land on 26.01.2025 during night hours. Having noticed the act said Yallappa, the family members

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1499 CRL.A No. 200052 of 2025

¶39

of the complainant went to the spot along with the complainant and asked Yallappa to stop the cultivation of the land.

¶40

It is further stated that the said Yallappa and others said to have assaulted the complainant and his family member and caused injuries. Therefore, a case came to be registered against Yallappa and others. The jurisdictional police after registering the case and

¶41

conducted the investigation.

¶42

Heard learned counsel Arunkumar

¶43

Amargundappa for the appellants, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri B.K.Hiremath for respondent No.2

¶44

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent of the alleged offences and no independent witnesses have been cited in the case. The involvement of the appellants in the alleged

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1499 CRL.A No. 200052 of 2025

¶46

incident is doubtful and they have been dragged into this case in order to knock off the property by the complainant.

¶47

It is further submitted that the alleged incident had taken place in the odd hours i.e., early in the morning. It was dark and overt-act of each accused cannot be assessed by the complainant and others. Therefore, the allegations made against these appellants appear to be doubtful and therefore, the appeal may be allowed and appellants may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶48

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and he further submitted that the appellants are very powerful persons and also financially stable. The complainant and his family members belong to weaker section and were directed to cultivate the land, which is subject matter of the dispute.

¶49

The appellants and his family members even though had restrained from cultivating the land in dispute, they

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1499 CRL.A No. 200052 of 2025

¶51

deliberately with an intention to knock off the property entered the land at night hours and started cultivating by ignoring direction issued by the Revenue Authorities.

¶52

It is further submitted that when the appellants were asked to stop the cultivating of the said land, they started assaulting the complainant and his family members. Consequently, the complainant and his family members have sustained injuries. Further, the appellants

¶53

herein have scolded by naming the caste of the complainant. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected.

¶54

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the argument of learned High Court Government Pleader and he further submitted that when allegations are made against the appellants are serious in nature and also heinous in nature, in order to protect the interest of the society at large the appeal has to be rejected by upholding the order passed by the Sessions Court. Making such submission, he prays to reject the appeal.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1499 CRL.A No. 200052 of 2025

¶56

Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the dispute between the complainant and accused persons was in respect of the property bearing Survey No.57, measuring 28 acres 6 guntas situated at Kortipli village, Raichur district. Though the alleged incident had taken place in the disputed land, the time on which the incident had taken place has to be considered at this stage.

¶57

Even though it is stated in the complaint that appellants herein had also actively participated and assaulted and abused by naming the caste of the complainant, the fact remains that appellant No.2 is aged 70 years and the appellant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are women. As the incident had taken place in the odd hours, assessing the overt-act of each accused cannot be possible. Be that as it may, on perusal of the averments of complaint, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants have made

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1499 CRL.A No. 200052 of 2025

¶59

out a case to allow the appeal. Hence, I proceed to pass

¶60

the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The appeal is allowed.

¶63

The impugned order passed by the learned Special Court for cases under the SC and ST (POA) Act and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.56/2025 dated 12.02.2025 is set aside.

¶64

The appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.5/2025 of Yapaladinni Police Station, Raichur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 119, 352, 351(2) read with Section 190 of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions:

¶65

a) The appellants shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶66