AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
The sole accused filed this appeal praying to set aside the order dated 07.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.4223/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), whereunder the anticipatory bail application of this appellant/accused sought in respect of Crime No.80/2023 of Hebbala Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (in short “the Act”) and Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code came to be rejected.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant/accused, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 did not appear to contest the appeal.
Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on 02.05.2023 stating that he belongs to Adhi Karnataka Caste which is coming under schedule caste and there were quarrels between him and appellant/accused with regard to caste abuse. With the same intention, on 30.04.2023 on Sunday in the morning 10.50A.M. when he was near Rajlaxmi Wines at that time appellant/accused stopped him and abused him in singular and made caste abuse and gave life threat. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered in Crime No.80 of 2023 of Hebbala Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The appellant/accused apprehending his arrest filed Crl.Misc.No.4223/2023 seeking anticipatory bail, the same came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, which is challenged in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the very averments of the complaint reveal that there is earlier quarrels between the appellant/accused and respondent No.2. There is a delay in filing the complaint. What are the words used by the appellant/accused to abuse the complainant have not been stated in the complaint. The averment made in the complaint does not attract the offence under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, bar under Section 18 and 18(A) of the Act is not attracted. On that point she placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 159. Without considering all these aspects the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant/accused which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prays to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant/accused.
Learned High Court Government would contend that the averments of complaint will reveal that the appellant/accused has made caste abuse and threatened the complainant to take his life and it attracts offence under Section 3 of the Act. Considering bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act, the Session Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of this appellant/accused. With this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has perused the impugned order and averments of the complaint.
The averments of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the appellant/accused will reveal there were earlier quarrels between him and appellant/accused regarding the caste abuse. In the complaint it is stated that
The said averment reveal that the appellant/accused stopped the complainant and talked with him in singular and made caste abuse. What are words used for caste abuse has been not stated in the complaint. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said the averment of the complaint attracts offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, bar under Section 18 and 18A of the Act is not attracted, in view of the same, decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 159 (supra). Without considering these aspects the learned Session Judge/Special Judge has passed impugned order which requires interference by this Court.
The appellant/accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail. In the result, following
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.4223/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) is set aside. The anticipatory bail petition is allowed. The appellant/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.80/2023 Hebbala Police Station, subject to following conditions:
a. The appellant-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer;
b. The appellant/accused shall voluntarily appear before the Investigation Officer within 15 days from today and execute bail bonds and furnish surety.
c. The appellant/accused shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer in the investigation.
d. The appellant/accused shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.