AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail,
to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 353, 355,
506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(r)(s)
(m) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prohibition of
Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 registered in
respondent police station in Crime No.273/2017.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 & 6
and also the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State.
I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on
record.
The facts of the prosecution in brief are that
the petitioners are residents of three different villages of
Soraba Taluk which comes within the limits of
respondent police station. Petitioners are working for
public life and fighting for the cause of general public
connected with various issues on 31.10.2017. The
petitioners were indulged in darana regarding
demolition of sheds and huts of poor residents who were
residing on tank bund of a Gokkatte in Anavatti Village
near Vittal temple. The Government of Karnataka has
taken up the widening of the road which is a State
Highway between Shivamogga.
The complainant made the allegation in the
complaint that on 31.10.2017 at 12.30 p.m. Rajappa
D.B.Thallur, the Second Division Assistant went along
with others to the place where the persons who were
allotted with the sites and which were going on darana
and at that time when they were receiving the
representations the accused persons who are named in
the complaint all of a sudden assaulted Rajappa
D.B.Thallur, the Second Division Assistant and they
also kicked him. Further allegations in the complaint
goes to show that one Muthesh S/o Mallappa assaulted
the complainant with the chappal and abused with
filthy language taking the name of the caste and thereby
even committed offence under the provisions of SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The further
averments goes to show that the petitioner threatened
the complainant that he will get transfer him and also
posed life threat. At that time, one Parashuramappa S/o
Guthyappa and Zakhir S/o Shabbir Sab came to the
place and pacified the quarrel. On the basis of the said
complaint, the case came to be registered for the alleged
offences.
Looking to the contents of the complaint and
other materials placed on record at this stage prima-
facie goes to show that it was a gathering of the people
who involved in the dharana and wherein the
complainant along with others came to the said place,
when it is a group of people involved in the dharana at
this stage, it cannot be anticipated the specific
allegation as against each of the individual persons who
were involved in the dharana. Looking to the complaint
averments, no doubt it is clear that the allegations made
against the person involved is abusing him in filthy
language taking the name of the caste. But only on that
basis at this stage, it cannot be assumed by the Court
that the complainant has established that the materials
attracting the alleged offences even under the provisions
of the SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment
Act. Apart from that the complainant has not mentioned
in the complaint the community they belong to. Unless
and until they specifically state that petitioners belong
to any particular community which attracts SC & ST
(Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, the question of
committing alleged offence does not arise at all.
The petitioner has contended in the petition
that he is innocent and not committed the alleged
offences and he has undertaken to abide by any
conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged
offences are not exclusively punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by
imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be
granted with anticipatory bail. Therefore, Section 18 of
the SC & ST (Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act
2015 cannot be a bar to entertain this petition for grant
of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The
respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present
petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
504, 353, 355, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also
Section 3(1)(r)(s) (m) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST
(Prohibition of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015
registered in respondent police station in Crime
No.273/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and have to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.