G N Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL ENLARGING THE APPELLANT ON

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶18

BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.138/2024 DATED 22.12.2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 METAGALI P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 103(1), 351(2) AND 49, 3(5) AND U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING BEFORE THE VITH ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT, MYSORE, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSORE.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶22

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complaint was lodged by the complainant on 22.12.2024 and in the complaint it is stated that an incident had taken place on 05.11.2024 in respect of the landed property bearing survey No.93/52 to an extent of 4 acres, which belongs to the complainant, on 05.11.2024 at about 12.15 p.m, the appellant along with others came in a vehicle and claimed that the property belongs to them, i.e., survey No.299 and not survey No.93/52 and threatened to leave the said property and the appellant along with one Encounter Ravi and Arjun abused them taking their caste name and also caused life threat.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶26

It is also the case of the complainant that on 22.12.2024, her husband left the house in a scooter and the complainant received an information through her co-sister that someone has inflicted injury on her husband and immediately she rushed to the spot along with her relative and came to know that her husband was taken to hospital and immediately she went to the hospital and came to know that her husband succumbed to injuries. It is also her complaint that two unknown persons came in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-09-JL-8485 and the same belongs to one Vinod Kumar and other accused person also came to the spot on 22.12.2024 and murder was committed at the instance of the appellant Arjuna and encounter Giri and the police have registered a case with Cr.No.138/2024 invoking Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and offence under Section 103(1), 351(2), 49, read with Section 3(5) of the IPC.

¶27

The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Having perused the charge sheet, the police invoked the offences against the present appellant and accused Nos.5, 6, 9 and 10, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶29

Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and offence under Section 103(1), 351(2), 49, read with Section 3(5) of the IPC was invoked. Accused Nos.1 to 8 invoked the offences under Section 103(1), 61(2), 238, 189(2) read with 190 BNS 2023 and filed the charge sheet.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the allegations against the appellant herein is invoked of SC/ST offences and there was no complaint or investigation in respect of incident held on 05.11.2024 and second incident which took place on 22.12.2024 and to connect the Appellant is concerned, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'Act') was invoked against the appellant.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand¹ and also brought to the notice of this Court, the discussion made in the judgment that "the

¶32

1 (2020) 10 SCC 710

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶34

offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar" - Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable"

¶35

7. Learned counsel for the appellant referring the said judgment also contended that non-fulfillment of the ingredients of the offences punishable under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and there is no legal bar to hear the present appeal and therefore the embargo under Section 18 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act is not applicable.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

¶37

contend that after thought, the offence under Section SC/ST was invoked, there was no complaint in respect of first incident

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶39

and the statement of witnesses recorded subsequent to second incident, that too after 47 days of second incident. Only with an intention to connect the appellant, allegation was made. Hence, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The bar will not come in the way of Section 18A under prevention of SC/ST and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that two incidents have taken place and in view of the earlier incident taken place on 05.11.2024, which led to the second incident. The fact that this appellant was very much present on 05.11.2024 is not in dispute. The learned counsel vehemently contend that the statement of eye witness is recorded during the course of investigation and when the first incident was taken place and specific overt act allegation was made against the appellant that he used caste name and subjected the complainant family in a public view, humiliated them by taking their caste name. There is a bar under Section 18A of the Act. When such being the case, the Court has to take note of the material on record that this appellant was present at the time of first incident but the appellant was not present at the time of subsequent incident

¶41

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶42

and that the fact that the earlier incident which led to taking of life cannot be disputed and when the complainant family was subjected to humiliation in the presence of general public and eye witnesses to the incident, their statement was recorded and also the relief sought is seeking anticipatory bail and not regular bail and during the course of investigation, absconded and hence, not a fit case to grant bail.

¶43

Having heard, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, there is no doubt in the complaint about the specific allegation made uttering the word that the complainant family belonging to particular caste and abuse was made and according to the complainant, this incident was taken place on 05.11.2024 and no complaint was given immediately after this incident and no doubt life of Mr.Hanumanthu was taken in the subsequent incident on 22.12.2024. While lodging the complaint, the allegation of uttering and using of caste name came into existence for the first time subsequent to the second incident and no doubt the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 brought to the notice of this court the statement recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation dated 23.01.2025, the

¶44

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶45

counsel submitted that 8 witnesses have spoken about the same, i.e., the appellant has uttered a word taking the caste name. No doubt the statement of witness are also before the court. The Court has to take note of the factual aspect of the case that the said incident has taken place on 05.11.2024 at about 2.15 p.m and the said abuse was made and no complaint was given immediately and only after that second incident took place, while lodging the complaint, same is stated and also statement of eye witness were recorded after almost two and half months from 05.11.2024 and having noted about the said fact into consideration and also uttering the word of caste as omnibus is that accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 9 abused taking their caste name and taking note of delay in lodging the complaint with regard to invoking of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of accused No.4, who was not a party to the second incident held on 22.12.2024 and the only allegation is that he was present at the time of first incident held on 05.11.2024 and complaint was belatedly given invoking Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶46

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10976 CRL.A No. 332 of 2025

¶47

For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the

¶48

following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The criminal appeal is allowed .

¶51

ii. The appellant/accused in Cr.No.138/2024 dated 22.12.2024 registered by respondent No.1, Metagalli Police Station, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 351A(2) and 49, 3(5) and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (P.O.A), Amendment Act, 2015 pending before the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest subject to following conditions:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶54