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