Criminal Appeal No. 2164 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2164 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. VINOD GOWDA S/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO. 365/61 CHIKKASANDRA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 057. 2. C NANJAPPA S/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. KAVITHA RANI N D/O C NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO. 916, SHIVAKUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE - 577 004. (BY SRI. PARTHA M AND SRI. RAJA K.P, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER BANGALORE - 560001. 2. MAKUNTE KOTRESH S/O MAKUNTE MANJAPPA C/O OFFICE AT NO.7 1ST CROSS, NS. IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM COLLEGE BEHIND, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE CITY - 560 020.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. NANDINI B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ULLAS M, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS JUDGE BANGALORE THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 04.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND IN SPECIAL CRL.MISC.NO.9125/2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.362/2024, P/U/S 3(5) OF BNS, SEC. 126(2),115(2),352,351(2) R/W 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015, OF THE 1st RESPONDENT BAGALAGUNTE P.S., WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF CCH-71, CITY COMPLEX, BANGALORE CITY. OFFENCES (CCH-71) FOR THE THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Partha M., learned counsel representing learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Nandini B., learned counsel representing learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC & ST (POA) Act' for short) with the following prayers: "Wherefore the appellants above named humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 04/11/2024 passed by the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.9125/2024 and enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.362/2024 for the offences punishable under section 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) of BNS and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 of the 1st respondent, Bagalagunte Police station, which is pending before the Hon'ble Court of CCH-71, City Court Complex, Bangalore City in the above case in the interest of justice." 3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal. 4. A complaint came to be lodged with Bagalagunte Police Station, Peenya Sub-Division, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 Bengaluru City by the complainant namely Sri Makunte Kotresh against the appellants. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent-police have registered the case in Crime No.362/2024 on 25.09.2024 for the following offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 5. The gist of the complaint averments reveals that the complainant, being the practicing advocate, was given the hand summons to be served on the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2888/2023. When he proceeded to serve the 2nd defendant, as there was an altercation, in such an altercation with an intention to degrade the complainant, the appellants herein abused the complainant in filthy language, taking out his caste name and thus, he sought action against the appellants. 6. Police, after registering the case, are investigating the matter. In the meantime, the appellants - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 herein approached the learned Special Judge with a request for grant anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Special Judge after entertaining the objections of the 2nd respondent/complainant and the 1st respondent/learned Public Prosecutor, vide order dated 04.11.2024 rejected the anticipatory bail petition. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court. 9. Sri M. Partha, learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the contentions urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that on reading of the complaint in entirety, there is no allegation which would prima facie attract the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act. Therefore, there is no embargo for this Court to entertain the anticipatory bail application in view of Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act. 10. He also pointed out that a trivial incident has been blown out of proportion in the form of a criminal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 complaint. Since the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2888/2023 is now represented by an advocate by filing a vakalat, the apprehension of the 2nd respondent stands quelled and therefore, sought for the grant of anticipatory bail. 11. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader and Ms. Nandini, learned counsel for respondent No.2 oppose the appeal grounds vehemently. 12. They further contended that the prima facie materials on record would definitely disentitle the appellants from seeking an order of grant of anticipatory bail in view of Section 18 of the SC & ST (POA) Act and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the following point would arise for consideration: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 1) Whether the appellants have made out the case for grant of anticipatory bail? 14. In the case on hand, the incident, as is contended by the complainant, said to have occurred on 25.09.2024 between the period of 1:00 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. The first information was lodged with the Bagalagunte Police Station around 8:45 p.m. The gist of the complaint averments has been considered by this Court meticulously. 15. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that he was earlier working as an advocate in the office of Dr. V.S.Anand, Cubbonpet. It is further contended that Vinod Gowda and Nanjappa, are appellant Nos.1 and 2 before this Court, who were acquainted with him and they knew the caste of the 2nd respondent. 16. He has specifically stated that the said Nanjappa is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.2888/2023 and when the complainant went to serve the summons by hand to the 2nd defendant, who is the 3rd appellant before - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 this Court, the incident occurred wherein the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 abused him by taking out his caste name and also confined him in a place. It is also alleged that 3rd appellant held the shirt of the 2nd respondent and abused him. 17. On close reading of the complaint averments, it is noticed that except for using the abusive words, other averments would not ipso facto attract the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, whereby the embargo Section 18 of the said Act, cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. 18. Having said thus, since there is a complaint registered and the Investigation Agency has not been able to arrest the present appellants and the investigation has also been crippled to considerable extent, directing the appellants to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer and interrogating the appellants for a limited period and thereafter enlarging them on a bail - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, as is held in a catena of decisions, the point is answered in the affirmative, and the following order is passed:
Decision
ORDER a. Appeal is allowed. b. The appellants are directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer on 03.02.2025 at 10:00 a.m. If necessary appellants be taken to custody. c. Investigation Officer is directed to conclude the custodial investigation of the appellants, if any, on the very same day before 3:00 p.m., and thereafter enlarge the appellants by taking a bond in a sum - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2412 CRL.A No. 2164 of 2024 of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. d. The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. e. The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of Benglauru and Davanagere without prior permission. f. The appellants shall attend the Court regularly. g. The appellants shall also cooperate with the Investigation Officer as and when called for. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43