Dismissed

Padakanti Venkateshwarlu, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Aug 2014CRLP/7443/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. involving offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that Section 18 bars anticipatory bail when the complaint prima facie shows offense involving caste insult, precluding inquiry into the veracity of allegations at this stage. The petition was dismissed with liberty to move for

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move regular bail application and surrender to the Special Judge for consideration.

Padakanti Venkateshwarlu, Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7443 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/Accused in Crime No.189 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 2 (i) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the file of Station House Officer, Matwada P.S., Warangal Urban, Warangal District. 2. The averments show that the defacto complainant on noticing the house tax in the name of the nephew of the accused M. Srinivas went to the accused Venkateshwarlu and questioned him to return the document and how it was transferred. He promised to transfer on payment of the amount taken as loan and abused her in filthy language with intent to insult touching the caste in public view thereby the bar under Section 18 of the Act, applies for granting anticipatory bail. However, the factual matrix show that the accused person himself filed a report before the Police, which was registered as Crime No.188 of 2014 under Sections 447, 341 and 309 IPC, against the defacto complainant and others, who came to the petitioner herein and abused and created a scene and wanted to self immolate by pouring kerosene to implicate him and the present complaint against the petitioner from the defacto complainant herein is more than one and half hour after registration of Crime No.188 of 2014.

¶4

3. The contention of the petitioner is that this complaint is a counter blast to the complaint given by him and to bring in the civil transaction into criminal case.

¶5

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shobhan Singh Khanka V. State of Jharkhand^[1] drawing attention of this Court to para 22 so also to para 14, wherein it was held that personal liberty is a fundamental right and imposition of conditions as laid down in Section 438 Cr.P.C are to be applied or not to be specified. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Paracha Mohan Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh^[2] , and drawn attention to para 11 which clearly speaks

¶6

irrespective of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, a bail application is maintainable and it is for the Court to consider whether the allegations in the complaint or F.I.R attracts the prohibition under Section 18 of the Act or a case to grant anticipatory bail. It is clearly observed at the end of para 11 that when the allegations mentioned in the first information report/complaint in their entirety do not attract a particular offence under the Act, then the High Court or the Court of Session can exercise their discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

¶7

5. In fact, the Apex Court in the very recent expression in Bachu Das V. State of Biha r^[3] , wherein at para 6 by referring to para 9 of the earlier expression in Vilas Panduranga Pawar V. State of Maharashtra^[4] observed as under:

¶8

“6. It is clear that the learned Magistrate carefully perused the complaint petition, as well as the statement of the complaint and four witnesses examined during enquiry and arrived at a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons that the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, is made out. In such circumstance and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar V. State of Maharashtra, submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail. In similar circumstances, this Court has considered the offence under Section 3(1), as well as the bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and concluded as under:

¶9

“9. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking section 438 Cr.P.C. However, a duty is cast on the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accuse persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.”

¶10

9) The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Sections 438 Cr.P.C is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered

¶11

against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.”

¶12

6. From the expression of the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that when the allegations indicate abusing the complainant with caste name with intent to humiliate, it is a bar for maintaining the application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C, in view of Section 18 of the Act.

¶13

7. Now, from the proposition of law adverting to the facts covered by the complaint given by the defacto-complainant for registration of the crime, which is annexed to the application, it refers to pointing out the occurrence and also abusing in caste name with intent to insult by the petitioner. When such are the averments in the complaint abusing in caste name in public view with an intent to insult, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act for anticipatory bail, and thereby whether it is false accusation or whether there is any truth in the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court for the purpose of bail application as per above law. Thus, it is not a case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners from the bar; though otherwise the facts deserve consideration of bail.

¶14

8. Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner/Accused to move regular bail application and surrender before the learned Special Judge concerned and after notice to the Public Prosecutor and in such an event, the learned Judge is required to consider the application granting bail preferably on the same day, if not atleast on next day. The learned Judge in granting bail as per directions supra can impose necessary conditions which include furnishing of address proof with bank account particulars if any for securing presence before

¶15

Court non-interference with witnesses and the like.

¶16

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶17

______________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 12^th August, 2014 Rds

¶18

[1] (2012)4 SCC 684 [2] 2013(2) ALD (Crl.) 535 (AP) [3] (2014)3 SCC 471 [4] (2012)8 SCC 795

Padakanti Venkateshwarlu, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padakanti Venkateshwarlu, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Yunus Vs The State of a.p.

Smt. T. Aruna, Vs K. Madhu

P.N.v.Narasimharao, Vs Smt. Rapaka Usha

Anaparthi Rama Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt U.Padma Vs State of Telangana Through Si of Police

Sunkara Jagadeesh, Vs Konathala Krishna