Channaraje Urs. vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

The present petitioners are said to be accused of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504, 295A and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''IPC'', for brevity) and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''SC & ST Act'', for brevity). The petitioners having approached the court below seeking anticipatory bail, the court below has rejected the same and therefore, the present petition.

The learned Government Pleader would raise a preliminary objection that the present petitioners are accused of offences punishable under the SC & ST Act and therefore, there is an express bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act to invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''Cr.PC'', for brevity) and hence would submit that the petition ought to be rejected outright.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , and the apex court, interpreting the rigour of Section 18 of the SC & ST Act, has observed thus:

"10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bad, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record."

Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that if it can be shown that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie against the petitioners, there is no bar in granting anticipatory bail. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out that the particular allegations against the petitioners are that they had abused the complainant and instigated others and that they were armed with deadly weapons and had assaulted several victims. And that if they had indeed used the weapons, as suggested by the complainant and the prosecution, there ought to have been severe injuries caused to the victims. There is no material on record to indicate that any injury has been caused to any of the alleged victims. It is further pointed out that the complainant is not the victim and he has filed the complaint on behalf of his neighbours and it is alleged that the petitioners had abused and assaulted his neighbours. Therefore, there is no direct allegation of the petitioners having caused any such injury to the complainant and there is 1 1/2 days delay in filing the complaint, which is also unexplained. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case as against the accused. These aspects of the matter have been completely overlooked by the court below in the court having proceeded on the strict interpretation of Section 18 and having held that since there is express bar, the petitioners were not entitled to bail while overlooking the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another vs. State of Maharashtra, supra.

Given the infirmities in the case of the prosecution, it is for the prosecution to establish the allegations against the petitioners at the trial and it cannot be said that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners, unless the above discrepancies are explained. Hence, the petitioners are held entitled to grant of bail.

The petition is allowed. The petitioners, in the event of their arrest, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the petitioners executing personal bonds, each in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety, for a like sum, each, to the satisfaction of the court below. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned police, as and when required and shall attend the court on all dates of hearing. The petitioners shall not induce or threaten any prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.