STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. YASHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-state. Though the respondents are served did not choose to appear.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that there is an altercation taken place between the complainant and the accused persons. That on 18.10.2017 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant alone came to an Ice Factory situated at Auto Nagar, Belagavi through his goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/A-6895. When the complainant was getting down from the said vehicle, these respondents came there and picked up quarrel abusing him in filthy language by taking the name of his caste. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 assaulted the complainant on his head and limb with a club and other respondents have assaulted the complainant with hands. As a result, the complainant fell down on the floor sustaining bleeding injuries on his head and thereafter the respondents fled away from the spot. Based on the complaint the police have registered the case against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(v)(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further contended that the accused persons have approached the Special Court by filing petition in Criminal Petition No.2901/2017 for grant of anticipatory bail and the Special Judge has considered the said bail petition and allowed.

(3.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail contending that the learned Special Judge has not read and understood the provisions under Sec. 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and also the decisions rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others, 2012 8 SCC 795, wherein it is held that there is a clear bar under Sec. 18 of the SC/ST Act, for entertaining the application under Sec. 438 of Crimial P.C. is erroneous and failed to take note of the ingredients of Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(v)(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the learned Special Judge has erred in allowing the petition.