Smt.Sunanda, W/o Late Boregowda Vs The State of Karnataka

This is a petition filed by petitioners-accused

Nos. 1 to 3 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying

to direct the respondent police to release them on bail

in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 506, 504, 323, 354 read

with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x)

of the SC/ST (POA) Act registered by the respondent

police in Crime No.294/2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that though there is counter complaint filed by the

petitioner which is first in point of time against

complainant and others that was not taken into

consideration by the court below. It is also his

submission that petition came to be rejected by the

learned Sessions Judge only on the ground that

Section 18 of the ACT is a bar to entertain the

petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel

submits that because the petitioners filed a complaint

first in point of time against the complainant and

others, as a counter blast the complaint has been

filed against the petitioners. Hence, he submits that

petition be allowed.

Per contra, learned HCGP referring to

Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) (''Act'' for short)

submitted that there is a bar to entertain the petition.

It is also his submission that the contents of the

complaint go to show that offences are also committed

under the provision of SC/ST(POA) Act. Hence,

petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the

bail petition, FIR and other materials produced in the

case. As submitted, the petitioner herein accused

No.1 Smt.Sunanda is the complainant as against the

complainant and others. On the basis of the said

complaint, FIR came to be registered against one

Prema, Sharada and Gopal B K in Crime

NO.294/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 341, 504, 392, 323 and 354 read with

Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, looking to these aspects

of the matter, at this stage, learned counsel for the

petitioners herein is justified in making submission

that as a counter blast, complaint is filed against the

present petitioners.

So far as Section 18 of the Act is

concerned, there is no absolute bar as such to

entertain the petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

But what the law says is, if the materials go to show

that the evidence under the provision of the SC/ST

(POA) Act appears to have been committed by the

petitioners, then in that case, the petition seeking

anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CR.P.C is not

maintainable. However, looking to the materials in

this particular case, the complaint averments when

perused, will not make out a prima-facie case so far

as the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act.

Vague and bald allegations are made by the

complainant. Therefore, only on the basis of the said

allegations, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that

they constitute the alleged offence under the

provisions of the Act.

I have perused the decisions of the Apex

Court and this Court relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners filed along with memo on

13.12.2017. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act will

not be a bar to entertain the petition. Even with

regard to the offences under IPC are concerned, they

are all triable by the Magistrate Court, except the

alleged offence under the provisions of the Act. There

is a compliant first in point of time by the petitioner

herein as against the complainant and others of this

case. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in

favour of the petitioners.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioners

on bail, in the event of their arrest for the above offences

registered by respondent police station in Crime

No.294/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and has to 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 shall make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with further investigation.

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

Since the main petition itself is disposed of, the

question of consideration of IA.No.2/2017 does not

arise. Accordingly, IA.No.2/2017 is also disposed of.