AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Mudagal, J
Learned HCGP submits memo with the report of the Investigating Officer regarding service of notice to respondent No.2. Service on respondent
No.2 is held sufficient. He is unrepresented.
Heard.
Aggrieved by the rejection of their application for anticipatory bail, accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 in Crime No.129/2021 of Hoskote Police station which is
now pending in Special C.C.No.601/2021 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru
have preferred the above appeal.
Crime No.129/2021 was initially registered against the named accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7-8 unnamed accused persons for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 506 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 on the basis of the complaint of respondent No.2.
It was alleged that on 28.03.2021 at 10.30 p.m. accused all of a sudden broke open the gate and door of complainant’s house at Hoskote Town,
trespassed into the house, abused him with reference to his caste, assaulted him with club on his face, shoulder and caused him grievous injuries. He
allegedly escaped from the hands of accused and later came back to his house.
There is a delay of two days in filing the complaint. None of the offences alleged against the accused are punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. The charge sheet is already filed. Except for the trial detention of the appellants are not required for any other purpose.
Though there are allegations against accused No.4 assaulting the victim with clubs, as per medical certificate the injuries suffered by respondent
No.2 are simple in nature. The allegation of abusing respondent No.2 with reference to caste are general. No specific allegations in that regard are
made against accused No.4.
As per the complaint itself the incident allegedly took place in the background of respondent No.2 video graphing accused No.1 a woman in his cell
phone. Therefore at this stage there are no grounds to believe that the incident was an outcome of caste based discrimination.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.11 of the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 held
that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of Act, 1989, the bar created by Section 18 and 18A(1)
shall not apply. This case is also covered by the said judgment. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground of
bar of Section 18 of the Act. The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The appellants are granted bail in Crime No.129/2021 on the file of Hoskote Police Station which is now
pending in Special CC No.601/2021 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. If they are arrested in
the said case, they shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellants shall appear before the trial Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment;
(ii) The appellants shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and furnish one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court
for their appearance;
(iii) The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner; &
(iv) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activities.