Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1064 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Rajan

2019-06-03

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-State under Section 439 (2) of CR.P.C. to cancel the bail granted by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi District, Belagavi in Crl.Misc. No.237/2018 dated 15.02.2018. 2. I have heard the learned HCGP and learned counsel for the respondents-accused. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that CTS No.4801/A and 4802/B situated near Keerti Hotel, Chavat Galli Cross, Old P.B. Road, Belagavi was belonging to the family of Patil. Complainant had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said properties from its owners and there was verbal agreement taken place between them that, this complainant should give six flats and six shops to the family of Patil after construction of Apartment in the said properties. Accordingly, the family of Patil is staying in the said six flats and making use of six shops in the apartment. The members of the Patil's family being not satisfied over construction work, used to quarrel with complainant. Frequently, the facts being stood thus, on 22.01.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., when the complainant was at the said Apartment, the petitioners along with other accused persons wrongfully restrained him and picked up quarrel uttering as the said complainant had grabbed their property by practicing fraud and he had not made sufficient water facility and lift facility to their flats and as he belongs to the Schedule Caste, only with that intention grabbed the properties of the upper caste. Immediately, Pramod Patil and Vishal Patil assaulted the said complainant on his right side neck and on chest with long sword and attempted to kill him. The remaining accused too had assaulted the said complainant with hands and footwear over his limbs and wrongfully confined him in a room. On the basis of the above, a complaint has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that though there is a bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989 (herein after called as 'the Act'), the Court below has wrongly exercised the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and has came to a wrong conclusion and has released the accused respondents on bail. 5. 4. It is the submission of the learned HCGP that though there is a bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989 (herein after called as 'the Act'), the Court below has wrongly exercised the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and has came to a wrong conclusion and has released the accused respondents on bail. 5. He further submitted that the complainant has suffered grievous injuries and got admitted in the hospital and the said aspect has also not been properly considered while releasing the accused-respondents on anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prays to cancel the bail. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents accused has vehemently argued and submitted that complainant though belongs to the Schedule Caste, the contents of the petition nowhere discloses or utters the said words against the complainant. The said allegation is general in nature and omnibus. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has released the accused on bail. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint, though, the word referring to the caste has been referred in the complaint but use of the said word is general in nature. A general allegation is made in the complaint that the remaining accused had assaulted the complainant and abused, without specific averment cannot be believable. It cannot be believed that, all the accused persons who were 16 in numbers with common voice had uttered all of a sudden abused by taking the name of the caste. It is considered that the complainant appears to be malafide. 9. It is well established preposition of law by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER, (2018) 6 SCC 454 that there is no absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie malafide. Under the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly exercised power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and released the accused persons on bail. Under the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly exercised power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and released the accused persons on bail. The trial Court in that behalf has exercised the powers and no good grounds are made out so as to interfere with the said order. 10. Taking into consideration the above said facts, I feel that there are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly petition is dismissed.