Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1191 (KAR)

Bharat v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-11

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.59/2019 of Malamaruti Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 109 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and also Sections 3 (2) (va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the SC/ST Act', for short). 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Though notice has been served on the complainant, he has remained absent. 3. The genesis of the complaint are that, on 04.05.2019, after finishing his official work at about 8.00 pm, the complainant was proceeding in the car of Bharat Kulkarni, who is the Boiler Repairer from Hubli and the complainant had planned to go to Kalaburgi from Hubli. The said Bharat Kulkarni had stopped the car opposite to Ubika Treads Tyre Remoulding Factory situated on Belagavi Maruti Nagar limits service road and the complainant told him to take the car inside the gate and he told the complainant that he will be right back in two minutes and went inside. At that time, three unknown persons came towards the complainant by holding hammer and by telling the complainant to get down from the car, they opened the car door from outside and started assaulting the complainant with hammer and as a result of the same, he received the hits on nose, mouth, back side of the head and they also assaulted 5-6 times on the left knee of the complainant and as a result of the same, he sustained bleeding injuries and he made hue and cry. On hearing the said voice, said Bharat Kulkarni and the staff/workers of the factory came and took the complainant inside the factory and gave the complainant water and came to know that the factory workers were tried to catch the above said persons, but they could not catch. At about 8.30 pm, they left the place and he went to Hubballi and from there he went to Bengaluru. Thereafter on 05.05.2019, he returned to Belagavi at about 9.00 pm, got admitted in the emergency ward at KLE Hospital, Belagavi and taken treatment. After that he went to Milan Hotel, stayed there and on 07.05.2019, filed the complaint before the Malamaruti Police Station. 4. Thereafter on 05.05.2019, he returned to Belagavi at about 9.00 pm, got admitted in the emergency ward at KLE Hospital, Belagavi and taken treatment. After that he went to Milan Hotel, stayed there and on 07.05.2019, filed the complaint before the Malamaruti Police Station. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused that the alleged incident has taken place on 04.05.2019 and the complaint is registered belatedly on 07.05.2019. The said complaint has been registered only on suspicion and no specific overt acts are alleged against the petitioners. It is his further submission that the petitioner No.2 is a retired official and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the Government officials. Petitioner No.3 has given evidence against the complainant in a departmental enquiry and only because of the said grudge a false complaint has been registered. It is his further submission that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. A false complaint has been registered against the petitioners and in the complaint not a single word has been uttered to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. There is no hurdle to grant the anticipatory bail. The petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State vehemently argued that the petitioners/accused are highly influential persons. They are working in the Government department. They may tamper with the prosecution evidence and threaten the complainant. There is prima facie material to show that the accused/petitioners have involved in the alleged offence. There is bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to release the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail. He further submitted that there are no good grounds to release them on bail. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other material. 7. The said complaint has been registered belatedly on 07.05.2019, though the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 04.05.2019 at about 8.00 pm. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other material. 7. The said complaint has been registered belatedly on 07.05.2019, though the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 04.05.2019 at about 8.00 pm. Even on careful perusal of the contents of the complaint, nowhere it has been alleged or stated that the petitioners/accused persons have abused by taking the name of the caste or touching the caste of the complainant and any of the ingredients of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. 8. It is well established proposition of law that, if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide, then under that circumstances, the Court can exercise power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to release the accused on anticipatory bail. This proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2018) 6 SCC 454 . 9. On a close reading of the contents of the complaint, it appears that it is a malafide complaint. The complaint is filed only to take a revenge against the accused. The complaint itself shows that the complainant has suffered with bleeding injuries and with the bleeding injuries he traveled to Bengaluru and next day he came back to Belagavi and got admitted in the emergency ward of KLE Hospital and thereafter he got discharged and went to stay in Milan Hotel and thereafter after one day he went and filed the complaint. All these facts and circumstances clearly goes to show that it is a false and frivolous complaint only to take revenge as petitioner/accused No.3 has given evidence in the departmental enquiry of the complainant. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. I feel that if the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice. 10. Hence the petition is allowed. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. I feel that if the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice. 10. Hence the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.59/2019 of Malamaruti Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 109 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, with the following conditions: i. Each of them shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. ii. They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. iii. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. iv. They shall cooperate with the investigation and they must be available before the Investigating Officer as and when they are ordered to do so.