CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sri. Puttegowda @ Puttanna vs The State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 KAR CK 0240

HON’BLE JUDGES
H Billappa, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 143, 147, 323 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3 (1) (x)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 6221 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 498 words

H Billappa

1.

The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

It is stated in the petition, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he has not commuted any offence. The petitioner is ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3.

It is alleged, that on 09.10.2011, at about 09.00 AM, one Manja and Venkatesh abused the complainant taking his caste name. At that time, the petitioner, Mahadeva and Kala came there and abused the complainant and assaulted with bands and threatened with dire consequences. Thereafter complaint has been lodged and a case in crime No. 401/2011 of Mysore South Police Station, Mysore, has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 506 R/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC and ST (POA) Act. 1989.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submitted that the allegations do not attract Section 3(1)(X) of SC and ST (POA) Act and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

5.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the investigation is going on and the petitioner is required for investigation and the allegations attract Section 3(i)(X) of SC and ST (POA) Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

6.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The point that arises tor my consideration is:

Whether the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail?

8.

It is relevant to note, the allegations are that on 09.10.2011, at about 09.00 AM, one Manja and Venkatesh abused the complainant taking his caste name. At that time, the petitioner, one Mahadeva and Kala came there and abused the complainant and assaulted. The allegations do not indicate that the petitioner abused the complainant taking his caste name to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(X) of SC and ST (POA) Act. It is stated, except the petitioner the other accused have been granted bail. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

9.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions.

i) In the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 401/2011 of Mysore South Police Station, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer by 08.12.2011 and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation as and when required.

iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses.

iv) If the petitioner violates any condition, the respondent-State can move for cancellation of the Bail.