Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 240 (KAR)

Maladri Reddy v. State of Karnataka

2018-02-21

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.477/2017. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that S.Govindraju lodged the complaint before the Halasur Police Station, Bengaluru, wherein he has stated that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint and working in 515 Army Base as a Fireman. On 14.12.2017 during night, himself and his friends i.e., K.C. Vargheese and C.L. Maladri Reddy/petitioner were working, at that time Vargheese received a phone message from his village he was talking over phone and the petitioner picked up quarrel and started abusing the complainant and Vargheese in filthy language and he torn the attendance register and the complainant brought this to the notice of his higher officers at 6.45a.m. and as they enquired the complainant told that the petitioner made galata by using abusing words, assaulted with stone and caused pain to the complainant and also posed life threat to him. Thereafter, the complainant went to Bowring hospital and got the treatment, then he went to Halasur police station and lodged the complaint. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, so also, respondent No.2, who is personally present before the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking into the registration of FIR it is not with regard to the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has further submitted that subsequently the Police in collusion with the complainant, created another complaint in respect of the very crime wherein all the unwanted things are mentioned in the complaint. He also submitted that the petitioner was working with the complainant for a prolonged period of 20 years during the said period there is no such kind of incident that has taken place, as the petitioner was going to be promoted, in order to stall the promotion and with false intention, false complaint came to be filed. He also submitted that the petitioner was working with the complainant for a prolonged period of 20 years during the said period there is no such kind of incident that has taken place, as the petitioner was going to be promoted, in order to stall the promotion and with false intention, false complaint came to be filed. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court, hence submitted to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that there is another complaint, which is lodged by the very complainant, wherein it has been mentioned in detail about the happening of the incident. However, he submitted that treating this also as a complaint in respect of the very crime number is a mistake committed by the Police, but he submitted that looking into these materials there is an allegation that the petitioner herein abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste, therefore, the alleged offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act is said to have been committed, in view of that and Section 18 of the said Act, petitioner, who is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is not entitled for the said relief. He also submitted that petitioner is involved in another crime i.e., Crime No.190/2013 registered for the offence under Sections 506, 341, 324 and 504 of IPC. It is also his submission that there is a prima-facie allegation as against the petitioner and even on merits also petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The complainant/respondent No.2, who is personally present before the Court, has submitted that the alleged incident has taken place and he lodged the complaint at the first instance and after he coming to know that the FIR was not registered for the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, he made another complaint narrating in detail about the incident, which has happened. Hence, he also submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 8. Hence, he also submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 8. Looking into the first complaint lodged on 15.12.2017, on the basis of which FIR came to be registered only for the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, which I have already mentioned above, and it was not registered for the alleged offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. But three days thereafter, i.e., on 18.12.2017 another complaint lodged in respect of very same incident and it is a detailed complaint containing three pages and the same was also registered in the same crime number. Looking into the endorsement by the Police, it is stated that the complainant made another complaint for the alleged offence. 9. There cannot be two complaints by same person on the same incident, if anything is left out while mentioning in the first complaint, the complainant could have made further statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 10. Apart from that when the petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and the alleged offence is also under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in view of Section 18 of the said Act, Court has to examine the material whether the materials will constitute the offence under the provisions of the said Act. In this connection, I have perused two complaints, in the complaints, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein abused the complainant as “KANNADA”. In the second complaint at page No.1 in paragraph No.3, it is mentioned as under: “KANNADA” 11. Looking into these averments made in the two complaints, they are not exactly one and the same. Apart from that there is no specific averments in the complaint that it was made on public view mainly with an intention to degrade the complainant in public view. Not only that, there is no mention to which caste the petitioner belongs to, because if the petitioner also belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, then there cannot be the offence under the said Act. Therefore, in view of these materials, I am of the considered view that the materials placed on record will not constitute the alleged offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, hence, Section 18 cannot be a bar to entertain the petition. 12. Therefore, in view of these materials, I am of the considered view that the materials placed on record will not constitute the alleged offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, hence, Section 18 cannot be a bar to entertain the petition. 12. Apart from that looking into the two complaints in respect of the said incident, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in making his submission that at this stage that Police in collusion with the complainant, created another complaint in this case. Regarding the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code are concerned, the petitioner has contended that he has not committed the alleged offence, there is false implication and he also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail. 13. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.477/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation. (iv) The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.