MALLIKARJUN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners -accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent -Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 143, 341, 506, 148, 148, 307, 323, 147 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 2(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), registered in respondent -Police Station Crime No.105/2016.

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners -accused and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners made the submission that the allegations made in the complaint are not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the Act so that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. He also made the submission that Raju the brother of the complainant informed the complainant that the accused abused him by taking his caste. It is also his submission that though as per the case of the prosecution Raju was present at the spot when the accused persons abused him by taking his caste, but he has not filed any complaint. The learned counsel also taken this court to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to some of the accused persons. The learned counsel draw the attention of the court at paragraph -13 of the said order and made the submission that looking to the observation made by the court this itself clearly goes to show that intention on the part of the accused was not at all prima facie established by the prosecution. Because it has been observed by the court below that intention of the accused creates a doubt. Hence, he submitted that the petitioners have not at all committed alleged offences under the provisions of the Act. So far as other offences are concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation that Raju the brother of the complainant has been assaulted by any of the accused. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.