ANANTHREDDY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sidramreddy V. Paraddy, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State. Perused the records.

(2.) This petition under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., is filed by accused No. 5 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No. 209/2014 registered by Gulbarga Police Station, for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is contended by learned Advocate for petitioner that jurisdictional Special Judge has issued NBW against petitioner to secure his presence and as such, he be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) It is vehemently contended by Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State that bail application should be rejected on the ground that prima facie case is forthcoming with regard to abuse of the complainant/informant relating to his caste. He would also contend that when the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is under the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court should not grant anticipatory bail. In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another v/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in : (2012) 8 SCC 795.