ARUN MANORAJ R Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the present appellant, who is arraigned as accused No.22 in Special Case No.758/2020 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11/8/2020 at about 8.30 p.m., accused being enraged on account of certain face book posts made by the son of CW.1 and CW.2 by name Naveen P. which allegedly was denigratory to the prophet and on account of the same, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons in their hands had barged into the house of CW.1 & CW.2 and thereafter, destroyed house hold articles and they had also robbed valuable articles and thereafter, they had set fire to the house. The offences charge sheeted are under Ss. 143, 144, 147, 148, 395, 435, 436 and 448 read with Sec. 149 of IPC, under Sec. 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981(KPDLP Act, 1981) and Ss. 3(1)(c)(r)(s),

(3.) (2)(iii)(v)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act' for short) 3. Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned counsel for the appellant advances mainly two fold contentions in support of the appeal. In the first instance, he submits that charge sheet papers shows that the Tahsildar had given a certificate which would indicate that accused No.22 himself belongs to Adi Dravida Community and therefore, he is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and therefore, the offences under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act do not get attracted to him and consequently, those part of the charge sheet allegations do not apply to him. Insofar as the other main offences under Indian Penal Code namely Sec. 395 and Sec. 436 are concerned, he submits that the offence under Sec. 436 of IPC is generally punishable with 10 years of imprisonment at the most and therefore, bail cannot be denied to the appellant. In regard to the more serious allegation under Sec. 395 of IPC in the charge sheet is concerned, he draws my attention to the statements of the CWs.1, 2 and 3, who are the complainant, his wife and their daughter. It is his submission that even if the statement is accepted in toto, the only thing mentioned as against the present appellant is that he had appeared at the scene at the time of commission of offences and he had whispered something in the ears of some of the accused persons and thereafter, he had gone away. He therefore submits that there is nothing on the material produced in the charge sheet to make out an offence under Sec. 395 of IPC. He submits that rest of the offences alleged are all triable by the Court of JMFC. He therefore submits that the appellant, who is in judicial custody since 19/8/2020 is entitled to be enlarged on bail.