SUJAY BHARGAV vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the 1st respondent-police to

release him on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)

(s), 3(1)(w)(i) OF SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014

registered in respondent police station Crime No.114/2017.

The prosecution case is that as per the complaint averments, wherein one Smt.Annapurna is the complainant in this case, it is stated that about

six months back, the petitioner, Sujay Bhargav had borrowed a sum of Rs.12.00,000/- on the promise that within two or three months, the said

amount would be returned to the complainant. Inspite of a lapse of six months, the said Sujay Bhargav had not repaid the said amount. When the

complainant asked for the same, the petitioner gave no response and not received the phone calls. Therefore, she was fed up. On 12.12.2017, she

went to the place where the petitioner was residing and at 6.00 p.m., she asked for repayment of the amount. At that time, Sujay Bhargav abused

her in filthy language and he phoned to his friends and before their arrival, he assaulted the complainant with his hands stating that he will not return

the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards rental amount and challenged her to do whatever she wants, he will not pay the amount borrowed nor the

rent. After arrival of his friends, the complainant was about to get into the car, the petitioner and his friends held her and they dragged her and tried

to outrage her modesty and also tried to drag her by holding her clothes. In that process, she lost the mangalya chain. The petitioner abused her in

filthy language by taking name of her caste. When those persons were leaving the place, they again warned the complainant that if she asked for the

amount, they will not spare her. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint requesting to take action against the petitioner and others. On the

basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against Sujay Bhargav and two others.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 and also the argument of learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused made a submission that looking into the complaint averments, the complainant herself is

not definite over giving the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. He also made the submission that as the petitioner herein is the tenant under the

complainant, with an intention to evict the petitioner from the said place, a false complaint has been filed against him making false allegations.

Learned counsel further submits that on that day, at the relevant point of time, he was not at all present on the spot. He also submits that so far as

Section 14 of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ''Act'') is concerned, learned counsel made

the submission that when the matter was before the Special Court, the said provision was made applicable in the case on hand. The bail petition

filed before the Sessions Court at Tumkur was rejected. Therefore, the said provision is made applicable and it is not necessary for the petitioner

herein to prefer an appeal against rejection of the bail order. Hence, he submits that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be

enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant made the submission that the complaint averments prima facie go to

show that there is involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. He submits that the petitioner dragged the complainant, assaulted

her and made an attempt to outrage her modesty. He also made the submission that the petitioner is involved in many other cases and rowdy sheet

is opened for the petitioner. Hence, he made the submission that he is a habitual offender and not entitled to be granted bail. He also drew attention

to Section 14A of Act and Clause-IV of the said provision. He submitted that the petition preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are prima facie established by the prosecution as the

complainant got treatment about the said incident and she has sustained three simple injuries. Therefore, learned Government Pleader made the

submission that this supports the case of the complainant prima facie at this stage. He also submitted that the petitioner is involved in many cases.

Therefore, he is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, complaint and other materials produced in the case. This petition is filed under Section 438

of Cr.PC seeking anticipatory bail and in view of Section 18 of the Act, the Court has to consider whether the petition is maintainable or the

petitioner is entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

I have perused the allegations made in the complaint. Looking into the allegations, it is stated that the petitioner herein abused the complainant by

taking name of her caste. What was abused by the petitioner is not narrated specifically in the complaint. Therefore, only on the basis of such

allegations made by the complainant that the petitioner abused her by taking name of her caste, it cannot be concluded at this stage that there is

material placed by the complainant to constitute an offence under the provision of the Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the Act cannot be a bar to

entertain the petition for the relief of anticipatory bail.

So far as other offences alleged under IPC are concerned, I have perused the materials placed on record. There is allegation in the complaint

that the present petitioner held the complainant, dragged her and injury certificate issued by doctor, who examined the complainant, at this stage

prima facie go to show that she has sustained three injuries, which are simple in nature. Apart from that, it is also stated in the objection filed by the

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in many other cases.

I have perused para-13 of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge mentioned that there are other cases against

the petitioner in NEPS Crime No.182/2005, 30/2006 and 257/2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 504, 506, 307 of IPC. It is also

observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the police have open rowdy sheet against the petitioner. Considering all the materials placed on

record by respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.