Ravi @ Ravi Kumar vs State

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 111/2013 on the file of the Nayakanahatti Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 355, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(2) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 (for short ''the Act'') is before this court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail. The respondent-Police have registered the above case against the petitioner on the complaint of one Boramma, a resident of Abbenahalli Village coming within the jurisdiction of respondent-Police.

A perusal of the averments in the complaint do reveal that this petitioner apart from assaulting her and giving her a blow felling her down in his land has abused her by taking out her caste name.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the allegation in respect of the petitioner abusing the complainant is far from truth and in view of the principles laid down in the decision Pankaj D. Suthar Vs. State of Gujarat, submitted that the allegations are far from truth and therefore, having regard to the other offences alleged there is no reason to decline the request of the petitioner.

As already pointed out the allegations in the first information filed by the complainant clearly reveal that the petitioner has abused the complainant specifically by taking out her case name. In that view of the matter, it attracts the provisions of Section 3(1)(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, by virtue of Section 18 of the Act, the present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed.