Ananthreddy vs The State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.—1. Heard Sri Sidramreddy V. Paraddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State. Perused the records.

This petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed by accused No. 5 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No. 209/2014 registered by Gulbarga Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is contended by learned Advocate for petitioner that jurisdictional Special Judge has issued NBW against petitioner to secure his presence and as such, he be granted anticipatory bail.

It is vehemently contended by Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State that bail application should be rejected on the ground that prima facie case is forthcoming with regard to abuse of the complainant/informant relating to his caste. He would also contend that when the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court should not grant anticipatory bail. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in , (2012) 8 SCC 795.

Perusal of the complaint would indicate that there is only reference about assault by accused persons and there is no reference about use of abusive words with reference to the caste of the first informant. It is only in the further statement of the first informant recorded on the next day, there is reference about alleged use of abusive words referring to caste. Now the investigation has been completed and jurisdictional Special Judge has issued NBW. The question which may arise for consideration during the course of trial is whether provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is applicable or not and threshold bar under Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would be applicable or not is a question of fact which is required to be decided by the jurisdictional Court. In the instant case, as observed hereinabove and at the first instance, there was no mention or whisper about alleged use of abusive words by the petitioner.

In view of the fact that offences alleged against the petitioner are neither punishable with death or imprisonment for life though exclusively triable by Special Court and petitioner being permanent resident of Khanapur village and having roots in the society, strict conditions if imposed on him, apprehension of the learned High Court Government Pleader expressed can be allayed.

It is also required to be noticed at this juncture itself, petitioner is also entitled for being enlarged on bail on parity inasmuch as other accused persons namely accused Nos. 3 and 4 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 200833/2015 by order dated 07.09.2015.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

"a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

b) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional Court on or before 11.01.2016 and in such an event, petitioner shall be released on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Special Court;

ii) Petitioner shall attend Court on all dates of hearing without fail except under unavoidable circumstances;

iii) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner;

iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities;

v) If petitioner violates any one of the conditions, prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail;"

Ordered accordingly.