Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15628 CRL.A No. 674 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.674 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATHA ACHARI, S/O VISHNA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 2-336, VISHNUMURTHI NAGAR, KELARKALABETTU, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 105. (BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Legal Reasoning
S.H.O., MALPE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. RAJA NAIK, S/O LATE KRISHNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT RADHA KRUPA, KOJAKULI, KELARKALABETTU, UDUPI-576 105. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15628 CRL.A No. 674 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.24/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI AND FURTHER PRAYS TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 74, 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF BNS 2023, UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989, IN CR.NO.6/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is a auto-rickshaw driver and that on 09.01.2025 at about 6.45 p.m., one Smt. Malini called over the phone for auto-rickshaw and engaged the auto-rickshaw to go to Tenkanidiyuru to bring the fish. At that time, the accused persons came and abused and also assaulted him with their hands on his cheek and also assaulted with stone and this appellant apart from assaulting, torn the clothes as well as abused in a filthy language and referred that he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15628 CRL.A No. 674 of 2025 belongs to a lower caste and he will not allow him to live and hence complaint is lodged against the appellant and others. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court granted bail in favour of accused Nos.1 to 3, but not granted bail in favour of this appellant. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that case and counter cases are registered and the first complaint was filed by the appellant and the case was registered on 09.01.2025 and as a counter blast, the present complaint is filed on 10.01.2025, that too afterthought. The learned counsel submits that no caste name is referred in the complaint except stating that he belongs to a lower caste and abused in a filthy language. 3. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would submit that the appellant abused in a filthy language, but not taken out the specific caste name. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and looking into the factual aspects of the case and also the contents of the complaint, though an allegation of assault was made, case and counter cases are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15628 CRL.A No. 674 of 2025 registered against each other. Apart from that, this complaint was filed subsequent to the registration of earlier complaint by the appellant. In the complaint, allegation of taking filthy language is mentioned and only referred that he belongs to a lower caste and not taken particular caste name with an intention of humiliate the complainant in public. When such material is available before the Court, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant. Though there is a bar under Section 18A of the special enactment, the Court has to take note of the very contents of the complaint. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN v. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 2020 SC 1036, has held that if the complaint does not disclose invoking of special enactment, particularly uttering the caste name with an intention to humiliate the complainant, the Court can exercise the discretion and the bar under Section 18A of the special enactment will not come in the way. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant by imposing certain conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15628 CRL.A No. 674 of 2025
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (vi) The appellant shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15628 CRL.A No. 674 of 2025 months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40