AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Criminal Petition No. 3923/2011 is filed u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for anticipatory bail and Criminal Petition Nos. 3824/2011 & 3924/2011 are filed seeking for regular bail u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 151/2011 of Indiranagar Police.
Hearing the news that complainant''s brother committed suicide, the complainant went to the spot and seen body of the brother hanging. On enquiry through co-workers, Krishna, Sriram and Mahesh, they revealed that the Petitioners assaulted his brother and humiliated him by touching his caste. The deceased was locked in a room. The complaint has been registered in Crime No. 151/2011 for offence punishable under Sections 342, 324 & 306 r/w Section 3(l)(x) of SC/ST PA Act.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a false ease is filed against the Petitioners. The prosecution has not examined as to whether the Petitioners have humiliated the deceased touching his caste. Some of the Petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and hence question of applying Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act does not arise. Since the case has been registered against as many as 13 and Ors. exact overt-acts of each of the Petitioner is not pointed out. The Petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos. 3824/2011 and 3924/2011 are in judicial custody for more than two months, their family is put to hardship. There are No. materials to disclose that the Petitioners humiliated the deceased by touching his caste in a public view to attract offence u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST PA Act. Though Section 18 of SC/ST PA Act is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail, relying upon judgment of this Court in Chikkappa and Others Vs. State, , it is submitted that this Court has got power to look into the gravity of the offence for the purpose of considering the relief u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioners that they are entitled for the relief prayed for.
On the contrary, the learned HCGP filed separate objections in respect of petition for anticipatory bail and petitions for regular bail and submitted that the informers Krishna, Yogesh, Sriram and Mahesh informed the complainant that the Petitioners have assaulted and humiliated the deceased thereby driving the deceased to commit suicide and there is a clear bar u/s 18(2) of SC/ST PA Act for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of all the three petitions.
So far as Crl.P. No. 3923/2011 seeking for anticipatory bail, when Section 18 of SC/ST PA Act bars granting the said relief, it is not open for this Court to liberally interpret the Section to give a different meaning to the Section. The decision relied upon by the Petitioners in Chikkappa and Others Vs. State, Hangal Police Station is not applicable to the present case. In that view of the matter, Crl.P. No. 3923/2011 is liable to be rejected, it is accordingly rejected.
The Petitioners in Crl.P. No. 3824/2011 & 3924/2011 have been in judicial custody for more than two months. Looking at their age and occupation, their family is depending upon their earning. Secondly by looking at the nature of the complaint and the statement recorded in the case, the further interrogation in custody is not required. Accordingly, I deem it proper to release these Petitioners on regular bail.
Accordingly, Crl.P. No. 3824/2011 & 3924/2011 are allowed. The Petitioners in these petitions are directed to be released on their executing a self-bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety for like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and they shall attend the court regularly.