Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2162 (KAR)

S. P. Muniraju v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-03

B.A.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitionersaccused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.74/2020 of Vishwanathapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Varaprasad K. for the petitioner-accused virtually and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty for the respondent-State. 3. The gist of the complaint is that the petitionersaccused have put up illegal construction of Kalyana Mantapa over the milk dairy and a civil dispute was also pending in this behalf, thereby the petitioners-accused used to cause trouble and on 4.9.2020 at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioners came near the house of the complainant and at that time when the complainant asked the petitioners to give him milk and not to put up construction in their site, the petitioners abused them by saying that they will not sell milk to them as they belong to low caste and petitioner-accused No.1 shouted saying that he is the head of the village and all the villagers should obey him and from today onwards he is boycotting the family of the complainant and the villagers should see that no facility is provided to them and he will not allow them to live in the village and thus they gave life threat. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that a civil suit has been filed by mother of complainant in O.S.No.339/2020 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and no injunction has been granted. Only with an intention to harass the petitioners-accused a false case has been registered. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the President and petitioner No.2 is the Secretary of the Savakanahalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society and they are carrying dairy business and the society is putting up construction of the first and second floor which is on existing building belonging to the society, there is no question of the petitioners putting the construction illegally. It is his further submission that the petitionersaccused have not abused by boycotting the complainant and there is no encroachment of the land whatsoever by the society. It is his further submission that no such incident has taken place. Only with an intention to pressurize the petitioners-accused a false case has been made as against the petitioners-accused by inculcating the Atrocities Act. It is his further submission that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners-accused have abused by taking the name of the caste and also boycotted the complainant. In that light, the provisions of Section 18 and 18A of the Act are attracted. Under such circumstances, no anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners-accused. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint it indicates that on 4.9.2020 at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioners-accused came near the house of the complainant and when complainant asked them to give him milk and not to put up construction, petitioners- accused No.1 abused and told that they should not sell the milk to the complainant as they belonging to the lower caste and it is petitioner-accused No.1 shouted loudly being the head of the village he has been boycotted the family of the complainant and the villagers should see that no facility is provided to them and he is not allow them to live in the village and also gave the life threat. 8. On going through the contents of the complaint, serious allegations have been made as against petitioneraccused No.1 for abusing by taking the name of the caste and boycotted the complainant and his family members. Insofar as other accused persons are concerned there are no serious allegations. The contention of the complainant shows omnibus allegation has been made in the complaint. 9. Insofar as other accused persons are concerned there are no serious allegations. The contention of the complainant shows omnibus allegation has been made in the complaint. 9. It is well settled proposition of law that if the complainant makes out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, then the bar has been created under Section 18 and 18A of the Act. Under such circumstances, the Court cannot grant anticipatory bail to the accused. 10. Keeping in view the said proposition of law, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner-accused No.1 has not made out any good grounds so as to release him on anticipatory bail. In that light, the petition as against petitioner-accused No.1 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 11. Insofar as petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned, no serious allegations have been made and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and even no heinous offence have been made out. 12. In that light, the petition is allowed insofar as petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.74/2020 of Vishwanathapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions: i. Each of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. ii. They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 20 days from today, failing which this order automatically stands cancelled. iii. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iv. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and co-operate for investigation. v. They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed. vi. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. vii. If they violate any of the conditions, trial Court has got liberty to cancel the bail.