Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1127 (KAR)

Ravi K P v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-18

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2020
JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.16 in the charge sheet filed by Davanagere Extension Police in connection with Crime No.66/2019. Initially, on the complaint lodged by one Dr. Y. Ramappa, the aforesaid crime came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 12 for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and under Sections 143, 147 and 149 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 42 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 507, 294, 114, 117 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The notice was issued to the first informant and he has been served but unrepresented. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the first informant was an Ex-President of Davanagere Zilla Panchayath. On 25.04.2019 there was a protest led by the accused persons and during the protest, it is alleged that the accused abused the complainant and used foul language insulting the name of his caste in public view, etc., 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the First Information Report was lodged against 12 accused persons making some bald allegations. The name of the present petitioner is not in the First Information Report. The name of the petitioner has been implicated much after the complaint on the basis of the alleged further statement of C.W.1 and statements of C.Ws.5 to 8. It is also his contention that there is a counter complaint lodged against the complainant in crime No.46/2019 of Mayakonda Police Station. He submits that accused Nos.13 to 15, 17, 20 to 22, 24 and 26 have been enlarged on bail by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the petitioner is accused of committing an offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and therefore, this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable in view of Section 18 and 18A of the said Act. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the petitioner is accused of committing an offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and therefore, this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable in view of Section 18 and 18A of the said Act. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 8. I have perused the material on record. The name of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the First Information Report. There is no specific allegation insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The case was registered initially against 12 accused persons. However, charge sheet came to be filed arraigning other accused including the petitioner herein. 9. This Court in Criminal Petition No. 1717/2020 disposed on 19.03.2020, while enlarging similarly placed accused whose names were not in the First Information Report, has referred to Para 10' of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in ' Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others ,2020 SCCOnlineSC 159which reads as under:- "10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A (i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions." (Emphasis supplied) 10. This Court in the above petition has observed that 'complaint does not make out a prima-facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act. The matter is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Bar of Sections 18 and 18a of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case'. The petitioners therein were accordingly released on anticipatory bail. 11. The present petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of the petitioners in the above referred Criminal Petition. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in this petition. Hence, the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 66/2019 of Davanagere Extension Police Station, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. Hence, the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 66/2019 of Davanagere Extension Police Station, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish two sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court for his appearance. 3. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise. 5. Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required for the purpose of trial.