Karnataka High Court
Jakkappa S/O Mallikarjun Walikar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2024
-1- NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100440 OF 2024 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100460 OF 2024 IN CRL. APPEAL NO.100440 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI SANTOSH S/O. APPASAHEB GANGANAMALLI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. KALLAKAVATAGI, TAL. TIKOTA, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586114. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADV. FOR APPELLANT) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SAVALAGI POLICE STATION, NEW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. Digitally signed by 2. SRI MACCHINDRA S/O. SANTAPPA ZANDE, BHARATHI H M AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. FARMER/COOLIE, Location: HIGH COURT OF R/O. KALLAKAVATAGI, TAL. TIKOTA, KARNATAKA DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586114. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. A.L. SANDRIMANI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN CRL. MISC NO.369/2024 AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.77/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 306 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, -2- NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024 BY THE SAVALAGI POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN CRL. APPEAL NO.100460 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. JAKKAPPA S/O. MALLIKARJUN WALIKAR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAKAVATAGI, TQ. TIKOTA DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586114. 2. BANU @ BANUSHA S/O. BHARATH SONANDAKAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAKAVATAGI, TQ. TIKOTA, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586114. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADV. FOR APPELLANTS) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI, SAVALAGI POLICE STATION, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. 2. MACHINDRA S/O. SANTAPPA ZANDE, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLAKAVATAGI, TQ.TIKOTA, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586114. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI ANAND L.SANDRIMANI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, SEEKING TO DIRECT THE SAVALAGI POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS (ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2) ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN RESPECT OF SAVALAGI PS CRIME NO.77/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306 OF IPC, 1860 AND SECTION 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BAGALKOTE AND ETC., THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024 C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
In these two appeals filed under Section 14 A(2) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’),
appellants are seeking anticipatory bail for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. While Crl.A.No.100460/2024 is filed by accused
Nos.1 and 2, Crl.A.No.100440/2024 is filed by accused
No.4.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks at the crime stage.
4. In support of the appeals, accused Nos.1, 2 and
4 have contended that they have been falsely implicated
on the ill advise of the person inimical towards the accused
persons. At this stage, there is no material to connect the
accused to the crime in question. There is inordinate delay
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
of six months in filing the complaint. It is stated that based
on the video in the cell phone of the deceased, complaint
is filed. The complaint is highly imaginary and false. In the
complaint itself, it is stated that the deceased was in need
of money and he was in contact with the accused persons.
So far as accused No.4 is concerned, he is working as
Junior Intelligent Officer in C.B.I. His arrest affects his
service. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigating
Agency. The deceased availed loan from several persons
and all of them were insisting for repayment. Being
frustrated, he committed said offence. Accused No.4 has
paid hand loan to the deceased through PhonePe. Out of
this, deceased has repaid Rs.40,000/- to accused No.4.
Accused persons are the only earning members of the
family. They are ready and willing to abide by any
conditions and they may offer substantial surety to the
satisfaction of the trial Court and hence, these appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied
upon the following decisions :
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
(i) Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala
and Another, (Shajan Skaria)1
(ii) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State
of M.P. (Sanju Sengar)2
(iii) Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra
Vs. The State of U.P. & Another,
(Prabhat)3
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/complainant has filed objections. Learned HCGP
submitted oral objections. The sum and substance of the
objections are that complainant is the father of deceased
Sachin Machindra Zande. The deceased was married to
one Deepa and having a daughter by name Avani. As he
was not having proper work at Kallakavatagi, about one
year back, along with his wife and child, he shifted to
Savalagi and running a hotel by name Annapoorneshwari
hotel and Khanavali. On 25.01.2024, at 12.00 noon, he left
the house. When he did not return, his wife made enquiry
with the complainant and others. His cell phone was also
1
2024 SCC OnLine 2249
2
(2002) 5 SCC 371
3
(2024) 3 SCC 665
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
switched off. Therefore, on 27.01.2024, she filed a missing
complaint.
6.1. However, on 28.01.2024, one Tanaji Vitthal
Jadhav informed that in the forest area, a dead body is
hanging from an eucalyptus tree, and there is also a
motorcycle parked near it. When his wife and others went
to the spot, they found that, the said person was none
other than Sachin Zande. When this fact is brought to the
notice of concerned police, they registered UDR No.4/2024
under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C. However, later when the
cell phone of the deceased was verified, they found a video
of 25.1.2024, wherein the deceased has stated that the
accused persons are responsible for him taking the
extreme step of ending his life. They filed cases against
him and made him to attend the Courts. He was also
insulted in the village. Unable to bear the harassment, he
is ending his life. The accused have abated the deceased
to commit suicide. They have abused him referring to his
caste. Unable to bear the harassment, deceased ended his
life.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
6.2. Based on the complaint filed by the father of
the deceased, the concerned police have registered case in
Crime No.77/2024 and taken up investigation. Since from
the date of complaint, all the accused have absconded.
Their presence is required for the purpose of investigation.
There is prima facie material to connect the accused
persons with the crime. Having regard to the gravity of the
offence, the custodial interrogation of the appellants is
necessary. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the
trial Court has rightly rejected the bail petitions of the
accused persons and pray to dismiss the appeals.
7. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and
perused the record.
8. Before appreciating the facts of the case and
grounds urged by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail, it
is relevant to note that Section 18-A(2) of SC and ST
(POA) Act, 1989, provides that the provisions of Section
438 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable to a case, where the
accused persons are alleged to have committed the
offences punishable under the provisions of SC and ST
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
(POA) Act, 1989. However, in Chandra Poojari vs. State
of Karnataka Seshadripuram police, Bangalore4, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that where the
allegations does not attract the provisions of SC and ST
(POA) Act, 1989, the prohibition under Section 18A(2) of
SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, is not applicable.
8.1. In Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan V/s State of
Maharashtra and another (Dr.Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan)5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the bar
to grant anticipatory bail contained in Sec.18 of SC and ST
(POA) Act is not absolute and applies only when prima
facie case of commission of offence under the Act is made
out. If the allegations of offence are found to be prima
facie motivated and false, exclusion of Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
would not apply.
8.2. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union Bank of
India (Prathvi Raj Chauhan)6 also the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that where a prima facie case is not made
4
1997(4) Kar. L.J.81
5
AIR 2018 SC 1498
6
3(2020) 4 SCC 727
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
out, then Section 18 and 18-A have no application. In the
light of the ratio in above decisions, it is necessary to
examine whether the prosecution has made out a prima
facie case against the appellant so far as offences
punishable under the provision of SC and ST (POA) Act are
concerned. The prohibition under Section 18-A(2) would
not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail to the
accused, when prima facie case is not made out.
9. As held in the above decisions, the burden is on
the appellants to show that no prima facie case is made
out to attract the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, only after
which, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail could be
granted. In the present case, undisputedly, the victim
belongs to scheduled caste. Since the offence in question
has taken place subsequent to the amendment of 2016, it
is sufficient if the victim belongs to SC or ST to attract the
provisions of this Act. Prima facie, there is material to
show that deceased committed suicide on account of
harassment meeted out to him by the lenders, including
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
the appellants. In his dying declaration, which is in the
form of a videograph recorded by him before committing
suicide, he has implicated the persons including the
appellants. Therefore, there is prima facie material to
connect the accused persons, including the appellants to
the crime in question. The allegations made are very
severe. The custodial interrogation of the appellants are
necessary for the Investigating officer to Investigate the
allegations against them.
10. So far as FIR and grant of bail in Crime
No.93/2022 is concerned, it was based on a complaint filed
by deceased which also indicate that earlier also there
were allegations against accused No.1 Jakkappa and
accused No.3 Banu Bharat Sunandakar with regard to
abusing the deceased referring to his caste. Any how the
trial Court has granted them anticipatory bail in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.957/2022 however it is not a ground to
grant bail in the present case.
– 11 –
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12965
CRL.A No. 100440 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 100460 of 2024
11. Sofar as Sanju Sengar and Shajan Skaria are
concerned, they are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
12. For the above reasons and in the light of prima
facie case made out against the accused persons, including
the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that
appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail, and
accordingly the following;
ORDER
(i) Crl.A.No.100460/2024 filed by accused
Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.A.No.100440/2024 filed by
accused No.4 are dismissed.
(ii) The impounded order dated 13.8.2024,
in Crl.Misc.Nos.373/2024 and 369/2024 passed
by the trial Court are confirmed.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
VMB/ckk, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34