Full Judgment
(Prayer: Crl.P Filed U/S.438 Cr.P.C By The Advocate For The Petitioner Praying That This Hon'ble Court May Be Pleased To Enlarge The Petr. On Bail, In The Event Of Arrest, In Cr.No. 82/2015 Of Hunusur Rural P.S., Mysuru Dist., For Offences P/U/S 341, 355, 295, 323 R/W 34 Of IPC And U/S 3(I)(X) Of Sc/St POA Act And Etc.)
1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Cr.No.82/2015 registered by the Hunsur Police Station. Offences are punishable under Sections 341, 34, 355, 295, 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. Bail application filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed by the Court of the 6th Addl. District and Sessions Court, Mysore on 10.4.2015 in Crl.Misc.No.596/2015. The petitioners are 3 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police.
3. The Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is threshold bar under Section 18 of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 since the first informant and his friends were abused with reference to their caste and were intimidated by these petitioners and accused No.4. It is further alleged that first informant and his friends, who are the members belonging to scheduled caste were trampled upon by these petitioners and they kicked with their legs, and even damaged the photo of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. It is further alleged that they were threatened with dire consequences to their life.
4. The incident in question is stated to have been taken place at about 9.30 p.m. on 21.3.2015 in Doddahejjuru Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District. The first information came to be lodged by first 4 informant Shekar between 9.00 and 9.30 p.m. on the subsequent date i.e., 22.3.2015.
5. As could be seen from the first information lodged by first informant, procession of Lord Anjaneya Swamy was going on in connection with Ugadi festival on the night of 21.3.2015 and the same had been organized by these petitioners and his friends. When the first informant and his friends went near the idols to perform pooja, these petitioners and accused No.4 stopped them and asked them not to come near the idols and perform pooja at a distance and then to go. Accordingly, first informant and his friends stood at a distance, performed pooja and went away. When first informant and his friends were discussing about the arrangements to be made in connection with Ambedkar Jayanthi, these petitioners and accused No.4 came there assaulted them, trampled upon them with their legs and damaged the photo of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and threatened them with dire consequences to their life and limbs.
6. The learned Govt. Pleader has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 to contend that there is threshold bar under Section 18 of SC and ST (POA) Act to grant bail in the present case since the first informant and his friends were abused with reference to their caste and were assaulted and damaged the photo of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. He has submitted that in view of threshold bar, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader and perused the records.
8. As could be seen from the decision rendered in Vilas Pandurang's case stated supra Section 18 of the SC and ST (POA) Act creates a bar for invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act 6 has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
9. After meticulously going through the first information lodged by Shekar, the first informant, it is forthcoming that they were abused by these petitioners and accused No.4, but no reference is forthcoming that they were abused with reference to their caste. However, they were assaulted and the photo of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was damaged and it is forthcoming in the first information. Insult or intimidation must be with reference to caste and this is sine qua non to attract the threshold bar under Section 18 of SC and ST (POA) Act. On verifying the averments made in the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reference about the first informant and his friends being abused with reference to their caste, though there is reference of 7 assault made on them and the photo of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar being damaged.
10. The petitioners are permanent residents of Hunsur Taluk having roots in the community. They have undertaken to obey any conditions imposed on them. Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be suitably met with by imposing certain conditions.
11. Accordingly, petition is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioners shall surrender before the I.O. of the jurisdictional police station on or before 30.06.2015 and in such event, petitioners shall be released on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.75,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O.
b) Petitioners shall cooperate with the I.O. in conducting investigation.
8c) Petitioners shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.
d) Petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities.
e) Petitioners shall mark attendance at the Jurisdictional Police Station on every 4th Sunday of the month between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of one year from the date of his release without fail, or till the filing of final report, whichever is earlier.
f) If the petitioners violate any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail, from the concerned special Court.