Srinivasa (Belamaranahalli) vs State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release

the petitioners-accused on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 143, 147, 341, 385, 379,

323, 148, 506B read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes 1989 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989,

registered in respondent police station Crime No.285/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

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

Since the petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and one of the alleged offence is under the provision of

Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, in view of Section 18 of the said Act Court has to examine about the

maintainability of the petition, so also, for the grant of relief as sought for in the petition. Even according to the Section 18 of the Schedule Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, there is no absolute bar, duty is cast on the Courts to examine the material and to

ascertain whether the materials constitute the alleged offences under the said Act. In view of this, after examining the complaint averments, it is the

allegation that all the six accused persons abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste and the words are also mentioned as,

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"". There is no allegation in the compliant that which particular accused used the abusive words, but it is

the contention of the prosecution that all the six accused, at once, in a single voice, abused by using similar words. Therefore the said contention in

the complaint itself is totally unnatural and improbable to be accepted. In view of that, after careful examination of complaint averments, at this

stage, I am of the opinion that they will not constitute the alleged offences under the provision of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be a bar to entertain this petition.

So far as the other IPC offences are concerned, the petitioners herein have produced the material that they have opposed the illegal mining and

made the petition to Lokayuktha and to the police requesting them to take action and in that connection, show cause notice was issued to the

petitioners, copies of such material have been produced by way of Annexures along with the petition. Therefore, it is their contention that the

petitioners-accused opposed the mining carried out by the owner of the quarry, so also the company which was transporting the sand and hence,

this is the reason for filing false complaint.

However, looking to the documents at this stage prima facie it shows that the petitioners have made such complaint to the authorities concerned

in the matter as against the owner of the quarry, so also, the Manager of the Transporting Company. Petitioners have also contended that there is

false allegation made against them and are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. So far as the other offences alleged under

the provisions of Indian Penal Code are concerned they are all triable by the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 427, 143, 147, 341, 385, 379, 323, 148, 506B read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of

Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes 1989 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, registered in respondent police station Crime No.285/2017,

subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each 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.