High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 10 KAR CK 0008

Rajshekar vs State Of Karnataka Through Nelogi P. S. (CR NO.135/2024) REP. BY S.P.P. High Court Of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench-585107 & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 October 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
T G Shivashankare Gowda, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 200237 Of 2024 (U/S 14 (A))

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 774 words

T G Shivashankare Gowda, J

1.

This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 482 of BNSS, 2023) with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in Crime No.135/2024, registered by the Nelogii Police Station, Kalaburagi district for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(f) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sec.8 of Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,1978.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.119/3, measuring 02 acres 03 guntas of Muttakod village, Tq. Yadrami, Dist. Kalaburgi. On 20.09.2017, he was approached the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Corporation, Kalaburagi (for short ‘Corporation’) intending to sell the aforesaid land. Accordingly, the Thashildar, Jewargi after inspecting the land submitted the report. The Corporation has obtained report from the Agriculture Department, Jewargi, the District Manager as well as Taluka Development of the Officer of the complainant Corporation. Thereafter, the land was allotted to Smt. Arati W/o Ningu, resident of Muttukod. Accordingly, on 27.10.2020, a sale deed was executed in favour of the beneficiary i.e., Smt. Arati W/o Ningu and the appellant has received 80% consideration i.e., Rs.6,55,700/- paid by the Corporation. Subsequently, on 13.02.2024, by misusing the voter I.D. of the beneficiary Smt. Arati W/o Ningu, the appellant got re-conveyed the land in his name defeating the very purpose of alienation. Hence, after coming to know about the re-conveyance transaction, the District Manager of the Corporation has filed a complaint against the appellant and set the law into motion. The appellant approached the learned Special Judge for grant of anticipatory bail and same was rejected vide impugned order. Hence, the appellant is before this Court.

3.

Heard Sri Vijaya Mallikarjunappa Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State. The beneficiary has been notified, she is remained absent.

4.

The material on record goes to show that the appellant approached the respondent No.2 - Corporation expressing his willingness to sell the land in question. Accordingly received consideration amount for a sum of Rs.6,55,700/- from the Corporation on 27.10.2020 and executed a registered sale deed on the said date in favour of beneficiary identified by the Corporation Smt. Arati W/o Ningu. On 13.02.2024, the appellant got re-conveyed the land from the beneficiary and thereby he has committed the alleged offences.

5.

It is pertinent to note that the beneficiary Smt. Arati W/o Ningu has also filed a suit in O.S.No.98/2024 against the appellant seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and the matter is pending before the Civil Court. In the meantime, the transaction between the appellant and the beneficiary came to the knowledge of the Corporation and thereby the law was set into motion against the appellant. Since the matter is pending before the Civil Court and the offences which the Corporation is relying is purely on the basis of documentary evidence whether the appellant will sustain the said property by virtue of the sale deed dated 13.02.2024 is a matter to be considered on merits in the said criminal proceedings.

6.

At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellant is a permanent resident of Muttukod village and he is rightly available for investigation. Mere alleged transfer of the land in question does not amount prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(f) of SC/St (PA) Act, 1989. Hence, there is no bar to exercise direction under Section 14 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing stringent conditions on the appellant.

7.

The appellant has made out reasonable grounds to exercise the discretion in grant of bail. In the result, the following;

ORDER

The appeal filed by the appellant – accused is hereby allowed.

The respondent – Police are directed to release the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.135/2024, registered by the Nelogi Police Station, Dist. Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(f) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sec. 8 of Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, subject to the following conditions:-

i) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with a surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

ii) The appellant shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and assist for the investigation.

iii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.