Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1624 (KAR)

Prakash Shankar Patil v. State Of Karnataka

2019-07-08

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.99/2019 of Khanapura Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(U) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014) and SEC. 504 of IPC. 2. Though, notice is served to complainant, complainant has remained absent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent- State. 4. The genesis of the complaint is that the Ombudsman Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi has passed the order on 18.02.2019 regarding misuse of power and implementation of work in construction of road between Harijanwada to Powachinal Panand, under the scheme of NAREGA in the year 2015-2016 and directed to initiate action against who are responsible for it. It is the case of the complainant that the daily Pudari News Paper on 07.05.2019 abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of his caste while he was talking in a mobile phone with one Vilas Kavatankar. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that he is innocent and there is a delay in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that the complaint and other materials clearly goes to show that he has not abused by taking the name of the caste of the complainant. A false case has been lodged against the petitioner-accused. For the alleged offences, he is not going to be punished with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioner-accused on bail. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and contended that the petitioner-accused has abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste. She also further submitted that there is a bar under Sec.18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Petitioner-accused is a highly influenced person, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and may not be available for trial. Hence, she prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Petitioner-accused is a highly influenced person, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and may not be available for trial. Hence, she prays to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it clearly goes to show that the alleged incident has taken place in the year 2015-16 and the complaint was registered on 07.05.2019. Though, there is a delay in filing the complaint, even on close reading of the contents of the complaint that there are no serious allegations made as against the complainant by taking the name of the accused. The only word which has been used is that he is using the name of Bheema Sena Sangha for collecting the money and except that there are no other allegations, it is nothing but false case filed as against the petitioner-accused. 9. It is a well settle principle 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 mala-fide. By going through the contents, no prima facie case has been made out to punish the petitioner-accused. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. No serious allegations made as against petitioner-accused. Under such circumstances, I feel, if by imposing some stringent conditions he may be enlarged on bail. 10. Hence the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.99/2019 of Khanapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(U) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014) and SEC. 504 of IPC with the following conditions: i. He 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. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. iv. ii. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. iv. He shall cooperate with the investigation and he must be available before the Investigating Officer as and when he is ordered to do so. v. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. vi. He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police once in fifteen days till the charge sheet is filed.