Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 49956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100334/2022
BETWEEN:
1.
RUDRESH S/O. YAMANAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS.
2.
NINGAPPA S/O. YAMANNAPPA HATTI
AGE: 38 YEARS.
3.
N. NAGAPPA S/O. HOSAGERAPPA NAVALI
AGE: 45 YEARS.
4.
GANGAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA
AGE: 35 YEARS.
5.
MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH
S/O. RAMANNA,
AGE: 30 YEARS.
6.
BASAPPA S/O. HOLIYAPA
AGE: 50 YEARS.
7.
UMESH S/O. GANGAPPA
AGE: 29 YEARS.
8.
HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS.
9.
K. KARIYAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA
AGE: 56 YEARS.
2
10.
HANUMESH HATTI S/O. VIRUPANNA
AGE: 56 YEARS.
11.
VIRUPANNA SIRIVAR S/O. GYANAPPA
AGE: 61 YEARS.
12.
B. VENKATESH S/O. GANGAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS.
13.
B. HANUMESH S/O. YANKAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS.
14.
M. YANKOBA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS.
15.
NAGAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA MALAGADDI
AGE: 47 YEARS.
16.
VENKATESH S/O. GANGAPPA HOLEKADE
AGE: 38 YEARS.
17.
H. NINGAPPA S/O. VIRUPANNA
AGE: 32 YEARS.
18.
B. MARUTHI S/O. YAMANAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS.
19.
VIRUPANNA HATTI S/O. AYYAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS.
20.
MUDIYAPPA @ HOLIYAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA HATTI,
AGE: 24 YEARS.
ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST9S,
R/O. SINGANAL VILLAGE,
TQ. KARATAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL 3 583 231.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD,
(THROUGH GANGAVATHI RURAL P.S.)
2.
SRI. SHANMUKAPPA
S/O. KARIYAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARSR, OCC: AGICULTURIST,
R/O. SINGANAL VILLAGE,
TQ. KARATAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL 3 583 231.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2)
OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL,
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND
SESSINS
JUDGE,
KOPPAL
(REGISTERED
IN
CRIME
NO.159/2022
BY
GANGAVATHI
RURAL
POLICE
STATION,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147,148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w),
3(2)(v-a) OF SC & ST(POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL PENDING
INVESTIGATION
AND
TRIAL,
INSOFAR
AS
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 20 ARE CONCERNED.
4
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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 8Cr.P.C.9, 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
8IPC9, 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 8SC & ST (POA) Act9, for brevity), came to be
rejected.
5
3.
Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
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
6
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.
5.
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
7
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.
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.
Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the investigation is still in
8
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
