GIRISH.P.R. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act') challenging the order dtd. 29/7/2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6932/2022 rejecting the appellant's application filed under sec. 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail.

(2.) Heard Sri Prabhugoud Tumbigi, learned counsel for the appellant, Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri K.P.Bhuvan, counsel for respondent No.2. Sri K.P.Bhuvan today has filed statement of objections and produced some documents.

(3.) It is the argument of the appellant's counsel that the trial court has failed to notice that the FIR registered against him does not prima facie disclose existence of a case that can be brought within the ambit of the Atrocities Act. If the report made by second respondent is read, it becomes clear that the second respondent has intentionally alleged that the appellant took the caste of the second respondent even though the actual dispute pertains to real estate business. Though it is stated that on 1/12/2021 at 2.00 PM, the appellant abused the second respondent and his wife in the name of his caste, perusal of the documents that the appellant has produced clearly indicate that on 1/12/2021, the wife of the second respondent was not in her house and she had attended the work where she is employed. Extract of attendance register and the identity card issued by Prestige Group where the second respondent's wife is employed are produced and these documents clearly prove that the wife was present in her work. Therefore it can be said that no incident took place on 1/12/2021 and the second respondent foisted false complaint against the appellant. He refers to the FIR registered against the second respondent and argues that as a counter blast to the said FIR, second respondent approached the police for harassing the appellant. The trial court has not at all considered the documents and has recorded a wrong finding that these findings cannot be considered for assessing whether prima facie case exists or not. He also submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Wrongly it is shown in the charge sheet that the appellant has absconded whereas notice issued by the police clearly approve that the appellant is very much present in his village.