Rathna Kumar C.G vs State Of Karnataka And Others

K.Somashekar, J

In this appeal the impugned ORDER passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru in

Crl.Misc.No.443/2021 dated 20.03.2021 has been challenged by urging various grounds relating to the case in Crime No.94/2020 of Hebbagodi Police

Station for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 506 of IPC beside Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Heard Sri Girish.J.T., learned counsel for the appellant who is appearing through video conferencing and so also, learned HCGP for respondent

No.1 who is present before the Court physically. Learned HCGP has to take care of the complainant in Crime No.94/2020 which crime came to be

registered by the complainant - M. Murugesh and also being the victim in the said incident.

It is relevant to refer the provision of Section 18 and 18(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as under:

Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.--Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to

any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.

18(A). No enquiry or approval required.--(1) For the purposes of this Act,--(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First

Information Report against any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an

offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply. (2) The provisions of section

438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, not withstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.

According to Section 18(A) of the said Act, there shall be expressive bar for entertaining the petition notwithstanding anything in the Code of

Criminal Procedure or even any judgment or any order passed by any court of law. When there is an expressive bar under the aforesaid Section,

entertaining the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail does not arise. However, the Court below in Crl.Misc.No.443/2021 by

keeping in view the scope and object of Section 18(A) of the aforesaid special enactment, the bail petition filed by the appellant/accused came to be

dismissed by assigning reasons. Therefore, in this appeal it does not require any detailed discussion as there shall be an expressive bar to entertain the

bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail as sought for. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to state that this appeal does not

survive for consideration.

In this matter, it is relevant to refer that in pursuance of the complaint filed by the complainant, the crime came to be registered in Crime

No.94/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 506 of IPC and so also, relevant provision of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. Whereas in the aforesaid substances in the FIR as well in the complaint it is indicated that the accused said to have abused the complainant by

holding the caste name which had wounded his feelings. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed before the Hebbagodi Police Station against the

accused. However, the aforesaid offence lugged against the accused are trivial in nature. Therefore, it is said that without expressing any opinion

regarding the allegations made against the accused, though the case in Spl.C.C.No.504/2020 arising out of Crime No.94/2020 registered by the

Hebbagodi Police which is pending, but the investigating agency are about to tracing of the accused in the aforesaid special case to proceed further in

accordance with law, causing for apprehension of the accused.

Keeping in view Article 21 of the Constitution of India that is Protection of Life and Liberty which is enshrined in the said Article. Therefore, in the

peculiar given facts and circumstances of the case as well as involvement of the accused in the aforesaid offences in Crime No.94/2020, it is deemed

appropriate to state that the accused/appellant is directed to surrender before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural district at

Bengaluru, forthwith, and he shall file a regular bail application as contemplated under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. Accordingly, in

terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I have to proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act, 2015 is hereby

dismissed.

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru in

Crl.Misc.No.443/2021 dated 20.03.2021 is hereby confirmed.

However, in a peculiar given facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to observe that the investigating agency i.e., the Hebbagodi

Police as where the case in Crime No.94/2020 is registered relating to Spl.C.C.No.504/2020, shall not precipitate the matter till disposal of the bail

petition to be filed by the appellant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court as where the Spl.C.C.No.504/2020 is pending.

Soon after filing of the bail petition, the trial Court shall dispose of the bail petition on merits, on the same day without getting influenced by any of the

observations made in this order.

Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor, in the trial Court is at liberty to file objections, if any, to the bail petition to be filed by the appellant/accused seeking

regular bail. However, the trial court shall dispose of the bail petition on the same day on merits in accordance with law.