IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Ramachandra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2022
SC and ST (POA) Act - Anticipatory Bail - Ss. 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (POA) Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an appeal seeking anticipatory bail in a case where they were accused of assaulting and abusing the complainant based on his caste. The complainant alleged that the appellants, along with others, assaulted and threatened him, leading to injuries and a delayed complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a civil dispute between the parties and a case and counter case related to the incident. It noted the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of mention of anyone else present during the alleged abuse based on caste. The court concluded that the appellants had made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues: Civil dispute between parties, delay in lodging FIR, absence of mention of others present during the alleged abuse based on caste.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in lodging the FIR, the presence of a civil dispute, and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of abuse based on caste in granting anticipatory bail to the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were directed to be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.57/2022 registered by the Srinivasapura Police Station, Kolar District, for offences punishable under Ss. 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC and ST (POA) Act', for short), have filed this appeal under Sec. 14-A(2) of the SC and ST (POA) Act seeking to enlarge the appellants on bail, in the event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.57/2022 of the Srinivasapura Police.
2. Brief facts of the case which are required for disposal of this appeal are, the complainant Srinivas P.N. lodged a complaint on 12/3/2022 before the Srinivasapura Police Station, Kolar District, alleging that on 10/3/2022 at about 12.00 noon when he was waiting for bus near Srirama Temple in his village, one Shri Shabari, S/o. Reddappa came there driving his luggage tempo. The complainant informed him to drive slowly and at that time, Appellant No.1 herein who was along with the said Shabari, abused the complainant mentioning his caste and thereafterwards also, assaulted him on his cheek. Accused No.2 who was also present along with Accused No.1, assaulted the complainant and pushed him down. Accused No.1 allegedly assaulted the complainant with a stone and thereby caused bleeding injuries on his ear and thereafterwards, the accused persons left the place threatening the complainant about dire consequences to his life. Immediately thereafterwards, the tempo driver Shabari and one Venkataravan took the complainant to the Government hospital at Srinivasapura. Thereafterwards, a complaint was lodged on 12/3/2022, based on which an FIR was registered in Crime No.58/2022 by Srinivasapura Police Station, Kolar District. Apprehending arrest in the said case, appellants had filed an application under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Criminal Misc.No.231/2022, which was dismissed by the said court on 30/3/2022. It is under these circumstances the appellants are before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties and in respect of the incident that had taken place on 10/3/2022, there is a case and a counter case. He submits that in O.S.No.58/2022, there is an order of injunction against the complainant and his family members and therefore, in order to harass the appellants, a false case has been registered against them. He submits that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR. He also submits that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are presumed to be proved, no case can be made out against the appellants for the offences under the SC and ST (POA) Act.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1 has opposed grant of anticipatory bail in this appeal contending that there is prima facie material against the appellants and hence, custodial interrogation is necessary. He submits that there are two eye-witnesses in the case and therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and accordingly prays to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have carefully considered the rival arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. A perusal of the complaint lodged on 12/3/2022 which has resulted in registering of FIR in Crime No.57/2022 before the Srinivasapura Police Station, would go to show that the alleged incident had taken place on 10/3/2022 and after a delay of nearly two days, the complaint has been lodged. The material on record would go to show that there is a civil dispute between the family of the appellants and the family of the complainant, which is pending consideration before the Jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S.No.58/2022 and there is an interim order operating in the said case against the complainant and his family. The materi
The main legal point established is that in cases involving allegations under the SC and ST (POA) Act, the court must carefully consider the evidence and circumstances, including the presence of civi....
Anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act can be granted if allegations do not prima facie support the charges.
The court found that allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act were dubious as two accused belonged to the Scheduled Caste, allowing anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act where prima facie offenses are established.
Anticipatory bail is barred under the SC/ST (POA) Act where prima facie evidence shows commission of non-bailable offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the court to consider relevant allegations and apply stringent conditions when granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases involvi....
Direction for same-day bail consideration post-surrender in SC/ST (POA) cases despite Section 18 bar.
The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if prima facie evidence of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act exists against the appellants.
The court ruled that allegations arising from personal disputes, lacking caste motivation, do not invoke the SC/ST (POA) Act protections.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.