RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by challenging the order passed by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.813/2021 dated 04.06.2021 rejecting the bail petition filed by the accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.102/2021 registered by the Whitefield Police for the offence under Sections 504, 506 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) Heard Sri Nataraju.T, learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 who are present before the Court physically. Though notice against Respondent No.2 - Sri.Rajashekara is duly served, but remained absent. But it is relevant to state that under Section 301 of Cr.P.C that when once the crime has been registered by the concerned jurisdictional police then it is the domain vested with the prosecution to proceed in further to take care of the complainant. Accordingly, in this matter, learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 - State has to take care of the rights of Respondent No.2/complainant, based upon his complaint the criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR in Crime No.102/2021.

(3.) It is transpired in the allegations made in the complaint that the appellant and so also, his son alleged to have assaulted the second respondent/complainant with means of blade thereby causing injuries on his body and so also, abused the complainant by holding his caste name which had wounded his feelings. But at a cursory glance of the allegations made in the complaint and so also, the allegation relating to the injuries inflicted over the person of the injured, he has been taking medical treatment for the injuries sustained.