Dismissed

Burugu Sri Devi v. The Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC21 Aug 2014CRLP/9531/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C when the FIR contains specific averments of abuse with caste names. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed without adjudication on the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to move for regular bail before the Special Judge.

Burugu Sri Devi Vs The Public Prosecutor — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9531 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioner/A-2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in Crime No.92/2014 of Peddavoora Police Station, registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of I.P.C and section 3(i)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶4

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

3. This is an application filed with the averments in detail that this is a false accusation stating that due to political rivalry the crime is registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shobhan Singh Khanka V. State of

¶6

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 petitioners has also relied on the decision of this Court in Paracha Mohan Rao V. State of

¶7

Andhra Pradesh^[2] , and drawn attention to para 11 which clearly speaks 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.

¶8

4. In fact, the Apex Court in the very recent expression in Bachu Das V.

¶9

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:

¶10

“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:

¶11

“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.”

¶12

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 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.”

¶13

5. 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.

¶14

6. 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 petitioners.

¶15

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.

¶16

7. Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner/A-2 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 Court non-interference with witnesses and the like.

¶17

8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶18

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶19

August 21, 2014 ksh

¶20

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

Burugu Sri Devi v. The Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burugu Sri Devi v. The Public Prosecutor

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

chowhan lokya naik Vs The State of telangana

Dasireddy Anjaneya Raju , Pullayya Vs The State of A.P.

G.Vishamber Vs State of A.P.

P.Krishnama Naidu, Vs The State of A.P.

V.Dhanunjaya Naidu Vs K.S.Vasanthi

Mohammad All , All Bai, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh