Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 858 (KAR)

Saiyad Jamil v. State

2020-05-11

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri Yatnal Parasappa Gurappa for petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for respondent are present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.29/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short SC/ST (POA) Act) of the respondent Police Station. 4. The date of complaint is 04.04.2020. 5. Previously, the petitioners had made application before the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.4/2020, Special Atrocity FIR No.32/2020 and Cr.No.29/2020 under Section 438 to Cr.P.C. that came to be rejected on 21.04.2020. Hence, this petition. 6. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 7. Heard. 8. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the application filed before the District Court and also in the order passed by the learned District Judge, which reads as under: 'Crime in question came to be registered for investigation of aforementioned offences including the offence of atrocity defined under the provisions of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. First informer, who is victim from the alleged act of petitioners, reveled with station house officer of respondent police station through his self written first information statement to the effect that when he along with his parents were working in their land on 04.04.2020 at 09:30 a.m. these petitioners who illegally trespassed into the land & wrongfully restrained him & insulted & abused him in his caste as basted son of 'Byada' prostitute which notified as schedule crime. Statement of victim on the commission act of petitioners cannot be discarded. There are prima-facie materials against the petitioners for commission of offence u/Sec.3(1) (r) (s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act in question. As per the provision of Section 18 of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 this court has no power to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the persons committed an offence under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, petitioners against whom there are primafacie materials for commission of alleged offence of atrocity are not entitled for the anticipatory bail. Therefore, petitioners against whom there are primafacie materials for commission of alleged offence of atrocity are not entitled for the anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.' 9. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 04.04.2020 at about 09:30 a.m., these petitioners are stated to have tress passed into the land of the complainant and wrongfully restrained the complainant and abused him as 'Byadara Sule Magane' (Son of Prostitute and abused on caste), also hit and assaulted him and caused injuries. It in this background, a case came to be registered against the petitioners. In this connection, the petitioners are apprehending arrest in the said crime number for the aforesaid offences. 10. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioners that copy of the complaint was handed over to the learned HCGP. Learned HCGP submits that copy was served through police to the complainant. 11. Learned counsel Sri.P.G.Yatnal, for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the petitioners by the complainant proved to be imaginary, which are made only to threaten and blackmail the petitioners. 12. In this connection, he would further submit that the petitioners assaulted the complainant after abusing him in the name of caste, wrongfully restrained him after tress-passing into his land and also posed threat to his life. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Pratvi Raj Vs. Union of India dated 10.02.2020 and submits that the prima-facie the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply to the case on hand as the very complaint itself speaks that petitioners had not violated the act nor has made the scolding to humiliate the complainant in the name of his caste. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents rendering for rejection of bail petition. Petitioners are ready to comply with the conditions that may be imposed on them and they are ready to offer sureties in accordance with directions of this Court. 14. Learned Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail petition of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have not made out ground for getting anticipatory bail. 15. The offence alleged against the petitioners are: Sections 447, 341, 504, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 16. 15. The offence alleged against the petitioners are: Sections 447, 341, 504, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 16. I find that the petitioners and the complainant are stated to be the villagers and agriculturists. There does not appears to be criminal background against the petitioners. Prima facie the complaint does not attract the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. 17. In the over all circumstances of the case, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail by getting the relief of anticipatory bail, no prejudice would be caused to ends of natural justice. However, apprehension of prosecution could be resolved by imposing conditions on the petitioners. 18. The petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.29/2020 registered by respondent police against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties each for the likesum. ii) The petitioners-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not come into contact with the complainant or his family members. iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Raichur district without permission of investigating officer and shall not come into contact with the complainant.