dated

28.01.2022

passed

in

Spl.

Case

(A)

No.1061/2021 by the Special Court for Cases Under the

SC/ST (PoA) Act and 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge at Raichur;

grant the regular bail to the appellant/accused No.1 in Spl.

Case.(A).

No.1061/2021

(Lingasugur

P.S.

Crime

No.187/2021) for the offences punishable U/s 304 R/w 34

of IPC & U/s 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA New Act-2015.

This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The appellant-accused No.1 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in Crime

No.187/2021 of Lingasugur Police Station, registered for

the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w section 34

of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and under

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, on the basis of the first

information lodged by the mother of the deceased

3

Parashuram. Subsequently charge sheet came to be filed

for the offence punishable under Sections 304 r/w section

34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act pending

before the Special Court and I Additional Sessions Judge,

at Raichur in Spl.Case (A) No.1061/2021.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the informant

Smt. Adamma, mother of the deceased filed the first

information against accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that they

have taken her son deceased Parashuram to canal water

even though they knew that the deceased does not know

swimming. The accused pushed the deceased into the

water and they are responsible for his death. On the basis

of the information, FIR was registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC and the

investigation is undertaken. After investigation, the charge

sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under

Sections 304 r/w section 34 of IPC.

3.

Heard Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti, learned

Counsel for the appellant and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned

4

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State

and Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for respondent

No.2. Perused the materials on record.

4.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.1 and he was

apprehended on 08.10.2021. Since then, he is in judicial

custody. Even though the FIR was registered for the

offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of IPC, after

due investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence

punishable under Sections 304 r/w 34 of IPC. Therefore, it

is clear that the appellant was not having any intention to

cause the death of the deceased. Even if the case of the

prosecution is to be believed as it is, the appellant is

innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He

has been falsely implicated in the matter without any

basis. Since the investigation is already completed,

detention of the appellant in custody would amount to pre-

trial punishment. The appellant is the permanent resident

of the address mentioned in the cause title to the appeal

5

and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions

that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to

allow the appeal.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2, opposing the appeal submitted that

serious allegations are made against the appellant for

having committed the offence. The specific allegations are

made against the appellant and another that even though,

they knew that the deceased does not know swimming,

they pushed the deceased into the canal water and they

are responsible for his death. It is the clear case of offence

punishable under section 302 of IPC. But the charge sheet

is filed for the offence under Section 304 of IPC and the

trial is still pending.

6.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further

submits that the appellant is the permanent resident of

Bengaluru and therefore, his presence cannot easily be

6

secured during the trial. Therefore, he is not entitled fo