LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-154

MAYAPPA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On October 29, 2015
Mayappa And Ors. Appellant
V/S
The State Of Karnataka Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent -police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 R/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, 1989 registered in respondent -police station Crime No. 93/2015.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the averments in the complaint are that on 28.08.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., when the son -in -law of the complainant and others were firing the crackers, as a result, the cow, which was tied in front of the house of the complainant was getting disturbed, as such the complainant abused his son -in -law at that time the petitioners thinking that the complainant is abusing them, picked up quarrel with the complainant abused him in filthy language and assaulted him. When his wife and mother intervened to rescue him, the accused have abused and assaulted them also. The elders pacified the said incident and the mother of the complainant was taken to the hospital for treatment. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered for the above said offences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners made the submission that, since this petition is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and in view of the Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is to be seen whether the complainant and the prosecution has made the case under the provisions of SC/ST Act so as to disentitle to claim for anticipatory bail. He made the submission that, looking to the averments made in the complaint it is not specifically mentioned about the abusive words and out of two accused, which accused used which abusive words is also not specified in the averments. Only vague allegations are made. Hence, he submitted the provision of offence under the SC/ST Act are not attracted prima facie. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be bar in entraining the petition for grant of anticipatory bail. He also made the submission that, so far as other alleged offences under the IPC are not the serious offences and they are triable by the Magistrate Court. Hence, he submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision reported in, 2014(5) KCCR 949.