AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J
Heard Sri R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [‘SC/ST Act’ for short], challenging the correctness of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.Misc.No.1053/2022, rejecting the appellant’s application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.181/2022 registered by the first respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of IPC.
FIR was registered on 15.09.2022 at 09.30pm, in relation to incident dated 14.09.2022. The allegation is that when the second respondent’s son went to the play ground of the High School of the village, the appellant herein and another accused, namely, Abhishek did not allow him to play. It is alleged that because the second respondent’s son belonged to ‘Nayaka’ community, the appellant and the another accused said that he should not play there. There is another allegation that the appellant and another accused assaulted the second respondent’s son severely causing severe injuries and then threatened to kill him.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false complaint came to be lodged because of political rivalry. The mother of the appellant also filed a counter complaint against the second respondent’s son. In this view the allegations leveled against the appellant can be doubted and therefore the apprehension expressed by the appellant of being arrested is well founded and anticipatory bail can be granted.
Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that given a plain reading to the complaint, a castiest attack is very much forthcoming. In this view the court below is justified in declining the anticipatory bail.
I have perused the impugned order and also the FIR. The FIR discloses that the second respondent’s son was not allowed to play in the ground because of his caste. Political rivalry is just a defence projected by the appellant at this stage, which requires investigation. No inference can be drawn that a false complaint came to be registered against the appellant in the background of political rivalry. Section 18 of SC/ST Act is very much applicable to a circumstance like this. The court below is justified in rejecting the application. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Therefore it is dismissed.