Rudramuniswamy @ D M Rudramuniswamy Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RUDRAMUNISWAMY @ D.M. RUDRAMUNISWAMY D.M. RUDRAMUNISWAMY, S/O. D.M. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOU 65 YEARS, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, R/AT SWAMY NILAYA, SHYANUBOGARA STREET, OLD TOWN, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA - 577 522.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE - 577 522, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

O. MANJUNATHA, S/O. LATE N. OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, GOVT. OFFICIAL NON-GAZATTED, NAGARASABHE, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHALLAKERE - 577 522.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶16

PRESENT ADDRESS: MADAKARI NAGARA, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHALLAKERE - 577 522.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NIKHIL BHARADWAJ M.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.10/2025 BY HON’BLE COURT OF SPECIAL, 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, AND PRAYED TO GRANT HIM ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.606/2024 FOR OFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 190, 324(4) OF BNS, 2023, SECTION 3(1)(j) OF SC AND ST (POA) AND SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT, 2013, PENDING INVESTIGATION, ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE COURT OF SPECIAL, 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA BY CHALLAKERE POLICE STATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the appellant’s counsel and also the

¶24

counsel appearing for the State-respondent No.1 and as well as the counsel for respondent No.2.

¶25

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant in the complaint that the appellant has used

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶27

the persons belonging to the schedule castes for manual scavengers to clean the toilet pit and thereby alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 324(4) R/w Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNS) and Section 3(1)(j) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 8 and 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and hence, invoked the offences and registered the case.

¶28

The appellant in the appeal has contended that

¶29

the Police have registered the case against him on the basis of false complaint given by the complainant. The persons who are participated in cleaning the toilet pit have not given any complaint and the complaint is given by the revenue inspector of CMC, Chellakere and also alleged incident took place according to the prosecution is that on 06.12.2024 and complaint was lodged on 19.12.2024 after conducting a meeting in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and there is belated complaint and also produced the document given by the Revenue Inspector

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶31

who conducted the mahazar spot mahazar on 21.12.2024. The counsel would contend that this appellant is falsely implicated in the case and he has not indulged in any such act.

¶32

Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the State

¶33

would contend that when there was a prohibition of using of manual scavenger Employees’ Seva Samithi official has filed complaint with Deputy Commissioner stating that the person belonging to the schedule caste doing the work of sanitary latrine pits without using the machines and thereby violated act of Prohibition of Employment of Manual Scavenging and Their Rehabilitation Act-2013 and also damaged the C.C road and hence, the case has been registered and matter is under investigation.

¶34

The counsel appearing for respondent No.2-

¶35

complainant would contend that having received the complaint, meeting was conducted, consequent upon the complaint given by the Revenue Inspector and found prima facie that the appellant had indulged in using of particular persons belongs to the schedule caste for

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶37

cleaning of the toilet pit and the same is also against the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and hence, they have not entitled for bail.

¶38

Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also

¶39

the counsel appearing for State and respondent No.2 and also taking into note of offences which have been invoked that is SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and as well as Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and also BNS and considering the offences invoked and also the Prohibition and punishment it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant/accused having taken note of the factual aspects of the case when there was a delay in lodging the complaint and according to the prosecution, the alleged act was done on 06.12.2024 and complaint was received belatedly and also the persons who have involved in cleaning of pit have not filed the complaint, but only Samithi has lodged the complaint and

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶41

having taken note of the said fact into consideration, it is a

¶42

fit case to exercise discretion.

¶43

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The appeal is allowed . Consequently, the appellant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.0606/2024 of Challakere Police Station, Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Sections 324(4) R/w Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(j) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 8 and 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 subject to the following conditions:-

¶46

The appellant shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a 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 concerned Investigating Officer.

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:11177 CRL.A No. 438 of 2025

¶49

The appellant shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶51

The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶52

The appellant shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶53

RHS

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

¶55

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

Rudramuniswamy @ D M Rudramuniswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudramuniswamy @ D M Rudramuniswamy v. 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

Mr. Bhaskar B. R. Vs State of Karnataka

G N Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep R Hattangadi Vs State by Central Burea of Investigation

Andanaiah K Vs the State by Malavalli Town Police Station

N K T M Thavamani S/O N K Muthukrishna Pilli Vs State by CBI