IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3400/2018

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Mahantesh

Son of Sri.Shivappa Nayak,

Aged about 35 years,

R/o Jalawadagi Village,

Sindanoor Taluk,

Raichur District-584 128.

2. Sri. Santosh,

Son of Mounappa Chaluvadi,

Aged about 24 years,

R/o Jalawadagi Village,

Sindanoor Taluk,

Raichur District-584 128.

3. Sri. Basavaraj

S/o Sri. Hanumanth Nayaka,

Aged about 29 years,

R/o Valkamadinni Village,

Sindanoor Taluk,

Raichur District-584 128.

…Petitioners

(By Sri.Santosh S, Adv.,)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,

Through SHO Sindhanoor Rural,

Police Station, Sindanoor,

Raichur District-584 128.

(By State Public Prosecutor,

2

High Court of Karnataka,

Bangalore) – 560 001

…Respondent

(By Sri.S.Vishwamurthy, HCGP.,)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,

praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their

arrest in Crime No.42/2018 of Sindanoor Rural Police Station,

Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 341 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and

sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the

Court passed the following:

ORDER

This petition is moved on behalf of accused Nos.1,

5, 11 against whom Crime No.42/2018 is registered by

the respondent-police for offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 341, 506,

149 of IPC and Sections 3(1(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC

and ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned HCGP.

3.

Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of

objections but has orally opposed the petition.

3

4.

The FIR was registered based on the

complaint lodged by one Mounesh . In the complaint, it

is alleged that petitioner No.1 i.e. accused No.1 had

contested the Grama Panchayath Elections and had lost.

In this background on 27.02.2018 while the complainant

and

Chennayyaswamy

and

Chennanagowda

were

coming on their motor cycle, the accused came in a

Swift Car bearing No.KA 36 N 6922 and the other

accused persons came in a Bolero vehicle bearing

Regn.No.KA 36 N 5797 and intercepted the motor cycle

of the complainant. It is further alleged that with an

intention to kill Chennayyaswamy, accused No.1 came

forward to assault him with a knife and when he tried to

ward off the said blow, he sustained a bleeding injury on

his left hand. It is further alleged that accused persons

abused the complainant calling out his caste in public.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has

produced the copy of the FIR lodged by accused No.1,

which is registered in the same police station as Crime

4

No.41/17 in respect of the same offence. Learned

counsel submits that all the accused except two persons

are on bail in the said case. He submits that the present

complaint is a counter blast to the complaint lodged by

accused No.1 and the allegations made in the complaint

do not attract the offences punishable under the

provisions

of

Scheduled

Caste

and

Scheduled

Tribe(Prevention of Attrocities) Act.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel has

placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath

Mahajan v/s State of Maharashtra and another

(AIR 2018 Supreme Court 1498).

6.

On perusal of the FIR and the allegations

made in the complaint, it is evident that the aforesaid

incident has taken place in connection with the political

rivalry between the complainant and the accused

persons. There is absolutely nothing in the entire

complaint to suggest that the petitioners herein or any

5

other accused named in the FIR were motivated either

to insult