Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 268 (KAR)

S. Srinivas v. State of Karnataka

2019-01-28

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.420/2018 of Peenya Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. S. Shankarappa, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Yoganna, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. The counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the complainant is the tenant under the accused. He is running Sri.Lakshmivenkateshwara Industries. He has taken the building on monthly rent of Rs. 75,000/- and paid an advance amount of Rs. 11 lakhs. In the year 2015, the complainant sought for renewal of the rent agreement, at that time the accused demanded advance amount of Rs. 22 lakhs and demanded to pay monthly rent of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The complainant pleaded that he is suffering loss in the business and as such there were no settlement of rent. It is further case of the complainant that, the accused told him that he has to pay a rent of Rs. 2,25,000/- and advance of Rs. 22 lakhs, or else they have to vacate the building and at the time of saying so, he also abused the complainant by using the name of his caste and thereby he has committed the alleged offence. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier to filing of the complaint on 12.4.2018 there were exchange of notices between the parties and even the complainant has filed a suit in O.S.No.5450/2018 before the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and thereafter the matter was got compromised and an application also came to be filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. He further submitted that when the civil disputes were pending, nowhere it has been specifically alleged that the petitioner/accused by using the name of the caste has abused the complainant. He further submitted that he was not aware of the fact that he is belonging to reserved caste. He further submitted that when the civil disputes were pending, nowhere it has been specifically alleged that the petitioner/accused by using the name of the caste has abused the complainant. He further submitted that he was not aware of the fact that he is belonging to reserved caste. He further submitted by drawing attention to the complaint dated 12.8.2018 that the complaint does not contain the date, time, place and even it is not alleged in the complaint that the accused has abused the complainant in the public so as to insult him. As such he further submitted that provisions of Section 3(g) of the Act are not attracted. He further submitted that he is agitating to execute his legal rights and when there is enforceable debt and he wanted to recover through legal process of law, in order to avoid the same the complainant falsely lodged the complaint. He further by drawing my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.N.B.Gungarakoppa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in, (2002) CriLJ 3311 submitted that though there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act to grant anticipatory bail, however, if there is no prima facie material to hold that there is an offence under the said Act, this Court can exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. In order to support the said argument, the learned counsel also relied upon another decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Chikkappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in, (2002) CriLJ 518 and also in the case of Pishora Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in, (2002) CriLJ 4130. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the complainant disclosed the fact that the accused by using the name of the caste has abused and thereby committed an offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Act. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the complainant disclosed the fact that the accused by using the name of the caste has abused and thereby committed an offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Act. He further submitted that there is statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act to entertain the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that still the investigation is in progress. If the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may not be available for the trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused is the landlord of the Industrial Shed No.50/9 and 50/10 of Peenya II Stage, Industrial Area, Bengaluru. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has taken the building on monthly rental basis and there were exchange of words with regard to enhancement of rent and the advance amount. Even as could be seen from the contents of the complaint the said fact has also been clearly stated in the complaint. 9. Before going to consider the facts in issue, as could be seen from Section 18 of the Act, it has been stated that there is a bar to apply Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail, but subsequently the said Section has been interpreted by this Court and other various Courts and as quoted in the decision supra if there is no prima facie material to hold that the petitioner has committed the offence under the said Act, then under such circumstances this Court can consider the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. With that background, let me consider the complaint filed by the complainant. 10. With that background, let me consider the complaint filed by the complainant. 10. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint the complaint does not disclose that the date on which the alleged incident has taken place and even the place where exactly the accused abused using the name of the caste of the complainant and thereby the provisions of Section 3(g) of the Act have been attracted. 11. Even as could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other material it has been made available in this behalf that earlier to the alleged incident there were exchange of notices and even the suit in O.S.No.5450/2018 came to be filed and subsequently the said suit got compromised by filing an application under Section 23 Rule 3 of CPC. 12. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no prima facie material to hold that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence under the said Act. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, neither they are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing stringent conditions the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. 13. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.420/2018 of Peenya Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, subject to following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today. (iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. (iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court. (v) He shall give his attendance once in 15 days to the Investigating Agency in between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. till the charge sheet is filed.