Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1246 (KAR)

Sidramappa v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-13

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.8/2019 of Yadrami Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. 2. The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by one Sharanappa s/o Mallappa Harijan, the police have registered a case against the petitioner and he is arrayed as accused No.1. The allegations are that on 12.01.2019 two persons by name Mahiboobsab and his brother Chandsab had come along with goods vehicle and carried five bulls (cattle) in their vehicle. Meanwhile, some of his villagers stopped the said vehicle. When the complainant went to the spot, the petitioner and another person by name Basappagouda had stopped the vehicle on the reason as to why they are carrying the bulls/cattle to slaughter house. At that time, the complainant told the petitioner that he has sold his bull to Mahiboobsab and Chandsab. If they want to purchase the said cattle they may do so by paying the amount to the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner and another person picked up quarrel and also kicked the complainant and threatened that if he sell the cattle to Choudhari's namely Mahiboobsab and Chandsab, they will take away his life. On account of financial difficulties the complainant and others have sold the cattle. On registering the case, police have taken up investigation and making attempt to arrest the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint dated 12.01.2019 to PSI Yadrami police station stating that two persons by name Mahiboobsab and Chandsab are carrying the cattle/bulls illegally in a goods vehicle without licence or permit to the slaughter house. When the petitioner and another person stopped the said vehicle, the complainant and others have picked up quarrel and assaulted the petitioner. Thereafter, as a counter blast they have filed a false case against the petitioner and another accused. In the event of arrest the petitioner would be put to hardship and in-justice. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are no grounds for granting bail. Hence, petition deserves to be rejected. 5. Thereafter, as a counter blast they have filed a false case against the petitioner and another accused. In the event of arrest the petitioner would be put to hardship and in-justice. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are no grounds for granting bail. Hence, petition deserves to be rejected. 5. As could be seen from the prosecution records furnished along with bail petition, it is evident that the petitioner has filed a complaint before Yadrami police station regarding illegal transportation of bullock/cattle in a vehicle by Mahiboobsab and Chandsab. When the petitioner tried to prevent the same, the complainant and others have picked up quarrel with the petitioner and assaulted him. Thereafter, counter complaint was filed by the complainant against the petitioner. During the course of arguments the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that in view of statutory bar under Section 18(a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. 6. In a decision in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2018) 6 SCC 454 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "B. SCs, STs, OBCs. and Minorities Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 S. 18- Issue of exclusion of anticipatory bail in case of Atrocities Act in view of S.18 Reference to larger Bench not necessary, as position can be clarified on basis of law already laid down Held, no absolute bar against 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 mala fide. S.18 of Act excluding application of S.438 Cr.P.C. reiterated, valid and can be justified to protect victims of perpetrators of crime and does not violate Arts. S.18 of Act excluding application of S.438 Cr.P.C. reiterated, valid and can be justified to protect victims of perpetrators of crime and does not violate Arts. 21 and 14 of the Constitution However, S.18 cannot be read as being applicable to cases where individuals are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons Access to justice being a fundamental right, grain has to be separated from chaff Liberty of one citizen cannot be place at whim of another Law has to protect innocent and punish guilty Thus, exclusion of S.438 Cr.P.C. in S.8 of Act can be applied to genuine cases and not to false one This will help achieve object of law Judicial notice of abuse of Act in last three decades Inherent powers of court cannot be taken away by legislature Court has inherent power to grant interim bail even if there is no provision for anticipatory bail Legislation could not have intended to exclude judicial function of going into correctness of criminal allegations Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Ss.482, 348, 41 and 41-A Constitution of India Arts.21 and 14." 7. In view of the aforesaid decision, the Court has got inherent power to grant anticipatory bail, even there is a specific bar for granting bail. 8. The prosecution records clearly goes to show that there are complaint and counter complaint. The main contention of the petitioner is that a false complaint is registered against him as a counter blast to his complaint. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion and the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. 9. The submission of the learned counsel and the documents placed on record goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioner regarding his arrest and detention. Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. On his appearance, Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge him on bail, subject to following: CONDITIONS: 1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; 3. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 4. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; 3. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; 4. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; 5. In the event of registration of any other criminal case in respect of commission of similar offence, the present bail order shall stand cancelled; 6. If the petitioner is found to have violated any of the bail conditions, the present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled; The petitioner shall mark his attendance in respondent-Yedrami Police Station on every Monday until submission of the final report.