Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 982 (KAR)

Benne Kotresh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-05

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for release of the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest registered in Crime No.20/2020 of Kottur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 504, 323, 307, 506 R/W 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1) (r) , 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the 'Act' , for short). 2. The facts briefly stated are that on the complaint dated 09.02.2020 fi led by the complainant-B.Venkatesh Naik, the respondent police have registered the case. The allegations are that petitioner No.1 was having the transaction with the complainant as he was purchasing seeds, fertilizer and other articles from his shop and he had also borrowed hand loan from the complainant. Petitioner No.1 was also a surety for the loan borrowed by Noormohammad, who is the son of former minister Nabisab. When the complainant requested for repayment of the loan and the amount payable towards supply of goods, petitioner No.1 informed the complainant to come on 03.01.2020 near State Bank of India branch at Kottur so that he can give the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- borrowed by Noorahammad. When the complainant had gone near the said bank at about 3.15 p.m. petitioner No.1 abused the complainant in a filthy language by taking the caste name and his family members also abused the complainant. Thereafter they have assaulted the complainant. 3. On registering the said complaint, the Police have taken up the investigation and they are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. The bail petition filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Court was rejected. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant, who is assisting the learned HCGP. Perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the complaint averments, the incident of abuse and assault has taken place on 03.01.2020, but the complaint is fi led on 09.02.2020. On 03.01.2020, petitioner No.1 had gone to State Bank of India to collect the money from one Mr.Mohan G., who had purchased the groundnut from petitioner No.1. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the complaint averments, the incident of abuse and assault has taken place on 03.01.2020, but the complaint is fi led on 09.02.2020. On 03.01.2020, petitioner No.1 had gone to State Bank of India to collect the money from one Mr.Mohan G., who had purchased the groundnut from petitioner No.1. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- given by the said Mohan G., was snatched away by the complainant forcibly as such, petitioner No.1 fi led a complaint against him before Kottur Police Station, which is registered as FIR No.5/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 392, 323, 324, 307, 355, 506 of IPC. The police had taken up investigation in the said case and arrested the complainant in connection with the said case. Thereafter as a counterblast, the complainant has filed a frivolous complaint with the vindictive motive to harass the petitioners. On 03.01.2020 it is the complainant who has committed the offences by snatching the amount from petitioner No.1 which was given by one Mohan G., who has purchased the groundnut and later he has fi led a false complaint. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The pol ice officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. In the event of their arrest, they will be put to great hardship. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had fi led a case against petitioner No.1 for dishonour of the cheque which was issued for payment of debts incurred by him. Petitioner No.1 had failed to repay the loan amount borrowed by him and he had also stood as a surety. When the complainant demanded to repay the loan amount and other amount payable towards other transactions, the petitioners have picked up quarrel and abused and assaulted the complainant. There is a prima facie case to show that the petitioners have abused the complainant in a filthy language by taking the caste name and also assaulted him as such, the bail petition deserves to be rejected. 7. The first and foremost contention of the learned HCGP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant is that in view of Section 18A of amended Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 8. 7. The first and foremost contention of the learned HCGP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant is that in view of Section 18A of amended Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 8. In a decision Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018 in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s Union of India and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court adverting the decision in the case of Union of India V/s State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) CriLJ 65 has observed 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. 11. The court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised. 9. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, the Sessions Court and the High Court can exercise jurisdiction and grant bail if there are circumstances to prove that there is no prima facie case to attract the provisions of the Act. 10. As already stated above, on 03.01.2020, the police have registered the case at FIR No.5/2020 on the complaint filed by petitioner No.1 alleging that the complainant had snatched an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from petitioner No.1, but no complaint was filed by the complainant. There is inordinate delay of more than one month in filing the complaint against these petitioners. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present complaint against the petitioners is only a counterblast to harass the petitioners. It is needless to make the elaborate discussion or to give any specific findings about these records. The averments made in the complaint disclose that there was financial transaction between the accused and the petitioners on account of a case fi led by the complainant against the petitioners, their relationship was strained. 11. It is needless to make the elaborate discussion or to give any specific findings about these records. The averments made in the complaint disclose that there was financial transaction between the accused and the petitioners on account of a case fi led by the complainant against the petitioners, their relationship was strained. 11. The facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint dated 09.02.2020 and submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties clearly goes to show the apprehension of the petitioners regarding their arrest and detention. At this juncture, no grounds have been made out for their custodial interrogation. The petitioners have undertaken to abide by the conditions to be imposed. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned pol ice station within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order on any working day and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and enlarge them on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioners shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. ii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the Court as and when required. iii. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. iv. The petitioners shall not threaten or al lure any of the prosecution witnesses. Violation of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.