Khasim Patel and Others vs The State

Aravind Kumar, J.—1. Heard Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.

Petitioners have been arraigned as accused in Crime No. 206/2015 by Nelogi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 143, 147, 148, 323, 355, 295 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ''Act'').

Gist of the prosecution case is that one Sharanappa Kamble lodged a complaint alleging that on 06.12.2015 on the eve of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Parinirvana Day at about 7.00 p.m., locality persons had gathered in front of community hall and were performing pooja to the photo of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and at that point of time, petitioners along with few other persons came near the spot, abused the complainant and other persons and kicked the photo of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and hurt their religious feelings and when one of the persons present at the spot objected to the act of accused persons, they (Accused persons) assaulted them with hands and kicked them with leg and also used abusive, foul and filthy language by using their caste name and as such, complaint came to be lodged and jurisdictional police have registered the said complaint in Crime No. 206/2015.

It is the contention of Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned Advocate that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made against them and accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have already been enlarged on regular bail by jurisdictional Sessions Court and petitioners being only earning members of the family, they would be facing starvation, hardship and said complaint is lodged on account of political rivalry. Hence, he prays for petitioners being granted anticipatory bail.

Per contra, Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that when the contents of complaint prima facie indicate that accused persons having used abusive language by taking out the name of caste of the complainant and other family members, then in such an event, bar under Section 18 of the Act would be attracted and petitioners as such would not be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in , (2012) 8 SCC 795 and prays for rejection of the petition.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it would indicate that incident in question is said to have been occurred on the day when the complainant and other members of the village were performing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Parinirvana Day by celebrating the same on 06.12.2015. It has been stated by the complainant that accused persons had taken out name of their caste and abused them in foul language. Perusal of the complaint would indicate that it is an omnibus statement which does not indicate as to whether any one petitioner/accused had abused them or all the accused persons had abused the complainant and other persons who had gathered for such celebration. Undisputedly, statements said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer are all of the persons who belonged to same caste. It is not the case of complainant or other members who had assembled for such celebration that there were no other persons belonging to any other community present at the spot. Hence, prosecution will have to prove guilt of the accused during the course of trial.

It is no doubt true that if specific allegation is made in the complaint about the use of name of caste and abuse as such, would per se disentitles accused for being granted anticipatory bail. In this background, contents of the complaint will have to be looked into and as already noticed hereinabove, there is no specific allegation in the complaint about the petitioners having used the foul language either against the complainant individually or to any other persons who had assembled for conducting such celebration and as to which accused person had abused whom and it is an omnibus statement. This issue will have to be thrashed out during the course of trial. Though learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is justified in expressing apprehension about petitioners if granted anticipatory bail they are likely to create disharmony in the village and as such, this Court is of the considered view that to allay fears expressed by the prosecution, stringent condition if imposed on petitioners, to which Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that they (petitioners) would be ready and willing to abide, it would meet ends of justice. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled for the relief sought.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

b) In the event of petitioners being arrested in Crime No. 206/2015 registered by Nelogi Police Station, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions:

i) Petitioners shall surrender before II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gulbarga on or before 29.01.2016;

ii) Petitioners shall not enter Ranjanagi village, Jewargi Taluk, Kalaburagi District till the conclusion of investigation and filing of charge sheet;

iii) Petitioners shall not terrorize or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

iv) Petitioners without seeking exemption shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing except under exceptional circumstances;

v) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without express permission till the disposal of the case on merits;

vi) Prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail in the event of any of the conditions being violated by petitioners;