Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Rejected On The Ground That Cognizance Of Complaint Has Been Taken: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court held that the Court cannot reject a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Court has already taken cognizance.
A Case was registered against the appellants under Section 504, 506, 153(A), 109, 500, 501 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
It was averred in the complaint that the complainant, K.S. Ravi Kumar belonged to Scheduled Caste and was harassed by the appellants. He alleged that the residents of the Kailash apartments were criminally conspiring and instigating to pick up unnecessary quarrels with him.
Counsel for the Appellant, Senior Advocate Arun Shyam contended that the complainant has been filing similar complaints and this Court as well as the Supreme Court had previously quashed complaints of similar nature and imposed costs.
On a careful perusal of the averments in the complaint, protest petition and the allegations made against the appellants the Court stated that it could not be said that a prima case is made out against the accused which would disentitle their prayer-seeking anticipatory bail.
The Court noted that allegations made against the appellants are not sufficient to show a prima facie case for the offences alleged, particularly under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
According to the Court, it cannot be said the appellants have committed any such atrocities against the complainant on the ground that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Hence, Section 18 or 18A of the said Act, will not come in the way of considering the prayer of the appellants, seeking pre-arrest bail.
The Court further mentioned the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 4 SCC 710, where as per the Court, the Supreme Court observed that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
As per the Court, undisputedly, a ‘B’ Report was filed upon investigation. However, on protest petition summons were issued. Later despite non-payment of process fee to issue summons, NBW was issued against the accused. Hence, the appellants have a reasonable apprehension of their arrest.
According to the Court, the Sessions Court was not right in rejecting the anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Court has already taken cognizance.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ramanjaneyulu & anr. v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:11773)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Adv. Arun Shyam, Adv. Mattad Chidanandasawmy
Respondent: HCGP Vinay Mahadevaiah, Adv. K.S. Ravi Kumar