RAGHU & Anr vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Since these three petitions are in respect of same crime and since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these three petitions,

they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.

Crl.P.9594/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.7, Crl.P.9593/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.8 and Crl.P.9592/2017 is filed by

petitioner/accused No.9, all these three petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police

to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354 and 504 r/w

149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment

Act, 2015, registered in respondent police station Crime No.74/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of all the petitions and also the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in all the three bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Looking to the complaint averments one Smt.Roopa W/o Anantharamaiah lodged the complaint. The complaint averments show that the

incident is because of the land dispute in between the family of the complainant and the accused persons. Though there is an allegation in the

complaint that the accused abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste, it only a bald and vague allegation made in the complaint.

There are no specific allegations in the complaint that which particular accused used which particular abusive words towards the complainant or

other member of the family.

Though learned HCGP opposed the petitions on the ground that in view of Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, the present petitions seeking

anticipatory bail is not maintainable. In this connection, I am of the opinion that there is no absolute bar as such in the Act and it is the duty of the

Court to examine the materials on record and to find out whether the materials constitute the alleged offence even under the provisions of SC/ST

(POA) Act.

Looking to the allegations made in the complaint and as I have already observed above, there are bald and vague allegations and only on the

basis of such allegations at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations will constitute the offence even under the provisions of SC/ST (POA)

Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be a bar to entertain the petitions seeking grant of anticipatory bail. So far as other IPC offences

are concerned, the petitioners herein have denied the allegations and contended that false allegations are made against them. Petitioners have

undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that by

imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, all the three petitions are allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their

arrest in connection with Crime No.74/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:

i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the

further investigation.

iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the

surety bond.