Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 248 (KAR)

V. G. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

2018-02-22

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1, 4 & 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 427, 114 r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered in respondent police station Crime No.253/2017. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 4, & 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. It is stated that respondent No.2 has been served with the notice, but there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that one Ramesha is the complainant in this case, wherein it is stated that the petitioners herein have abused the complainant and his superiors in filthy language taking the name of the caste. They have broken the glasses of TATA Sumo vehicle belonging to the complainant and they have also posed a life threat to the complainant and his superiors. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 6. As per the complaint averments, incident said to have been taken place on 12.08.2017 at 1.30 p.m., but complaint came to be filed on 26.10.2017, nearly after two months of the alleged incident. There is no plausible explanation in the complaint about the delay in lodging the complaint. Apart from that, as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.697/2017 on 07.09.2017 against the complainant and others. It was much earlier than filing of the said complaint. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners herein that because they have filed such a suit for counter cause and in order to implead the petitioners in a police case, the said complaint came to be filed subsequently, by making false allegations. 7. Since the petitioners have not at all committed any offences nor they have went to the said place to enquire any coolie people are available, even then there is a false allegations in the complaint. 7. Since the petitioners have not at all committed any offences nor they have went to the said place to enquire any coolie people are available, even then there is a false allegations in the complaint. The delay of nearly two months in lodging the complaint and filing of the suit by the petitioners herein against the complainant, prima facie case goes to show at this stage that the contentions raised by the petitioners in the petition that they are justified in taking the contention that the complainant by making false allegations involved the petitioners herein in such a case. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners herein. 8. With regard to bar under Section 18 of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the allegations made in the complaint and other materials on the side of the prosecution will not make out such case with alleged offences under the provisions of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, the said bar under Section 18 may not be application to the present case. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners/accused No.1, 4 & 3 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 427, 114 r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered in respondent police station Crime No.253/2017, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each and have to furnish one surety each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. (ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation. (iv) The petitioners have 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.