Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1081 (KAR)

Rudresh v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-17

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This appeal has been filed by accused Nos. 1 to 20 challenging the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 503/2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, whereunder anticipatory bail petition of these appellants filed under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) in Crime No. 159/2021 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC & ST (POA) Act', for brevity), came to be rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1/State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Shanmukappa S/o. Kariyappa has filed the complaint stating that on 29.05.2022 at about 10.30 a.m., when Neelamma, Somanath, Devamma, Durugappa and Shekarappa were feeding cattle in their cattle shed, at that time 25 persons came there by forming an unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons like clubs, stone, iron rod with an intention to commit murder and assaulted Somanath and Neelamma and dragged Neelamma by holding her saree and torn her blouse with an intention to outrage her modesty and abused them in filthy language and also abused them by touching their caste. At that time, the complainant tried to pacify the said quarrel, all the accused persons abused him by touching his caste and also gave threat to his life with dire consequences. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 159/2022 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellants along with accused Nos. 23, 24 and 25 have filed petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Miscellaneous no. 503/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected so far as these appellants are concerned by order dated 04.07.2022 and so far as accused Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are granted anticipatory bail by the said order. The appellants have challenged the said order dated 04.07.2022 in the present appeal. 4. 503/2022 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected so far as these appellants are concerned by order dated 04.07.2022 and so far as accused Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are granted anticipatory bail by the said order. The appellants have challenged the said order dated 04.07.2022 in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the complainant is the only intervener in the quarrel between the appellants and others. It is his further submission that there are no specific overt acts alleged against each of the accused Nos. 1 to 20 in the averments of the complaint. There are only allegations against the appellants that they abused the complainant and others touching their caste. There are no specific allegations against each of the accused Nos. 1 to 20 abusing the complainant and others with the same words touching their caste. The learned Sessions/Special Court without considering all these aspects passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would contend that there is omnibus allegation of touching a women belongs to SC & ST caste by the accused persons which attracts Section 3(1)(w) of SC & ST (POA) Act. In the complaint there is a specific allegation of abusing and touching the caste of the complainant and others by accused persons which attracts the offence alleged against them. The learned Sessions/Special Court taking into consideration the said aspect has rightly rejected the petition seeking anticipatory bail by the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the investigation is still in progress, charge sheet yet to be filed and each of the specific allegations as against accused Nos. 1 to 20 are required to be ascertained. There is a case and counter case between the parties. On perusing the averments of the complaint, it attracts the offences under the SC & ST (POA) Act. Therefore, there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. The learned Sessions/Special Court has considered the said aspects and rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of these appellants, which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. The learned Sessions/Special Court has considered the said aspects and rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of these appellants, which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1-State, this Court has gone through the complaint, FIR and the impugned order. 8. On perusal of the complaint, there is a omnibus allegation against accused Nos. 1 to 25, forming an unlawful assembly, coming and assaulting Somanath and Neelamma and outraging her modesty, abusing the complainant and others touching their caste. There is no specific allegations against each of the accused Nos. 1 to 20 in the entire averments of the complaint as the allegation is omnibus. At this stage it cannot be said which of the accused among 20 accused abused the complainant and four others and which of the accused outraged the modesty of Smt. Neelamma. At this stage it cannot be said that all the accused together abused the complainant and others and outraged the modesty at the same time. More so, there is a complaint filed by one Kariyappa (accused No. 21) against 19 persons, which came to be registered in Crime No. 158/2022 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST(POA) Act and the same crime prior to the registration of present Crime No. 159/2022. Without considering all these aspects learned Sessions/Special Court has passed impugned order which required interference by this Court. When there is no prima facie case attracting for the said offences under Sections SC & ST (POA) Act, the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act is not attracted. 9. Therefore, appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 20 are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Other offences alleged against the appellants are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that if appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses can be met with imposing stringent conditions. 10. Therefore, appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 20 are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Other offences alleged against the appellants are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that if appellants are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses can be met with imposing stringent conditions. 10. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting anticipatory bail to the appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 20 subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.07.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 503/2022 is set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail petition filed by these appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 20 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 503/2022 stands allowed. The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 20 shall released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 159/2022 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station, subject to the following conditions: i. The appellants shall execute 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 appellants shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety. iii. The appellants shall remain present before the Police Station concerned on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 02:00 p.m. and mark their presence for a period of two months or till filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. iv. The appellants shall co-operate with the investigating officer and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required. v. The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. vi. The appellants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.