1. This appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and consequently, to release the appellant on anticipatory bail.
2. Heard both side and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections.
4. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the appellant herein, registered in Crime No.212/2021 of Byndoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’).
5. It is alleged that on 27.12.2021 at about 6.55 p.m., when the complainant/victim was returning to his house on a scooter along with one Venkatesh Devadiga, the accused who came in a car abused him in filthy language referring to his caste as "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." . There was a verbal exchange of words and thereafter the accused brought a long knife from the car and assaulted over the left side of complainant’s head, left hand and left elbow. Seeing this, one Janardhana Mogaveera and Manohara intervened and rescued the complainant.
6. The learned counsel for appellant has contended the entire allegations are false and it is a concocted story. He contends that the complaint is lodged on inimical terms as there is some dispute between the brother of petitioner and the complainant. He submits that the complainant is a rowdy sheeter against whom there are several cases registered, on the other hand, the appellant has no criminal antecedents. He submits that the appellant is not required for investigation as the charge sheet is already filed and he submits that the complainant is a Government Servant and in view of the false complaint filed against him he will be put to great hardship in the event of his arrest. He therefore, seeks to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant by imposing conditions.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the relief sought by the appellant contending that there is a prima facie case against the appellant attracting the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore there is a clear bar for entertaining the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the aspects of the case and rejected the prayer seeking anticipatory bail. He further submits that in the event of grant of relief to the appellant, there is likelihood of threatening the complainant. Accordingly, he has sought to reject the appeal.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the appellant has been absconding from the date of registration of the case. Now the charge sheet has been filed, which further substantiates the allegations made in the First Information Report. He submits that in view of the specific allegations against the appellant that he has abused the complainant insulting his caste etc., he is not entitled for the relief he has sought. Accordingly, he has sought to dismiss the appeal.
9. I have perused the complaint averments. It is stated that the accused abused the complainant as ‘ "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." . It is not disputed that the complainant belong to scheduled caste. The abusive words used by the accused prima facie attracts the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Since the appellant is accused of committing the offence punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, as rightly contended by the respondent’s counsel, the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. Further, the accused is also alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant with a talwar. It is seen that the statement of the victim is recorded from the hospital. In the complaint itself it is stated that he was shifted to Kundapur Government Hospital wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient. Even though the wound certificate reveals that he has sustained simple injuries, the injuries are on the forehead etc., which prima facie establish the incident in question. There are no grounds made out to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to allow the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
