SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 47683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1385 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

1.

K.Mahesh Hebbar

S/o K.Venkatesh Hebbar

Aged about 43 years

R/at <Bhagyalakshmi Nilaya=

Cholebettu, Kukkehalli village,

Udupi-576 124.

2.

Srivathsa S.Bhat

S/o Subramanya Bhat

Aged about 24 years

R/at D.No.2-50

<Bhoomika= Pangala Post

Kapu Taluk 574 106.

&Appellants

(By Sri Jagadeesha B N, Advocate)

AND:

1.

The State of Karnataka

By PSI Hiriadka Police Station

Represented by:

State Public Prosecutor,

High Court Building,

Bangalore-560 001.

2.

Sanjeeva Naik

S/o Koraga Naik

Aged about 46 years

R/at Cholebettu House

:: 2 ::

Kukkehalli,

Udupi- 576 124.

&Respondents

(By Sri K.Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;

R2-Served)

This

Criminal

Appeal

is

filed

under

Section

14(A)(2) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 2015 praying to set aside

the

dated

22.07.2022

passed

in

Crl.Misc.

No.145/2022 passed by the Learned Prl. Sessions

Judge, Udupi and release of the appellants in the

event of their arrest in Cr.No.36/2022 of Hiriadka

P.S., for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(s)

of SC/ST(POA) Act and Sec. 504 and 506 read with

Sec. 34 of IPC.

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission

this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Jagadeesha B N, learned counsel for

appellants

and

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2-Sanjeeva Naik has not appeared

before this court inspite of service of notice on

him.

:: 3 ::

2.

This is an appeal filed under Section

14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (8SC/ST Act9

for short), challenging the correctness of the order

dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Principal District

and

Sessions

Judge,

Udupi

in

Crl.Misc.

No.145/2022, rejecting the appellants9 application

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail

in connection with Crime No.36/2022 for the

offences

punishable

Sections

3(1)(r),

3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act and Sections

504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3.

The report made by second respondent

shows that the appellants were doing pisciculture

in the pond dug in their land. But according to

second respondent, the appellants dug the pond in

the forest land and in that background there was

some difference between them. On 10.07.2022,

the Department of Fisheries arranged a function

:: 4 ::

near the pond and when the second respondent

went

to

that

place

at

about

10.45am,

appellants said to have abused him taking the

name of his caste in front of the officers of the

Fisheries Department and the villagers. This was

the reason for registration of FIR against the

appellants.

4.

The appellants have produced copy of

report made by appellant No.1 to the police. It

shows

that

at

his

instance

police

also

registered an FIR in Crime No.37/2022 against the

second respondent. The allegation in the first

appellant9s FIR is that the second respondent

demanded money of Rs.2,00,000/- from the first

appellant for allowing him to cultivate the fish in

pond

and

when

he

refused,

second

respondent tried to snatch a gold chain which the

first appellant was wearing and threatened to

:: 5 ::

register FIR against him under the provisions of

Atrocities Act.

5.

If both FIRs are perused, an inference

can be drawn that probably in connection with

pisciculture,

there

might

have

entered

some

difference between the appellants and the second

respondent and a quarrel might have taken place

at the time when the function was arranged. In

this

view,

allegation

made

against

appellants by the second respondent are to be

investigated thoroughly and it is not possible at

this stage to hold that there exists a prima-facie

case

against

appellants

that

they

have

committed an offence under the Atrocities Act.

The court below ought to have applied its mind in

proper perspective. Merely because there is a

mention

about

caste

name,

it

has

come

to

conclusion not to grant anticipatory bail. It is also

to be noted that the appellants presence can be

:: 6 ::

secured for the purpose of investigation at any

time. Therefore the appeal deserves

to be

allowed. Hence the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order dated 22.07.2022 passed

in Crl.Misc.No.145/2022 by the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, is set

aside.

In

the

event

of

arrest

of

the

appellants by the respondent police in

connection with Crime No.36/2022, they

shall be released on bail subject to each

of

them

executing

a

bond

for

Rs.1,00,000/-

(One

Lakh

only)

and

providing two sureties for the likesum to

the

satisfaction

of

the

investigating

officer.

The

appellants

are

also

subjected to following conditions:-

(i)

They

shall

co-operate

with

the

investigating officer for completing

the investigation.

:: 7 ::

(ii) They shall attend the police station

whenever

their

p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top