Anticipatory Bail Application Can Be Considered Even After Cognizance Of Private Complaint Is Taken: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the plea challenging the order of the trial court dated February 9, and granted them anticipatory bail on the execution of a Bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties.

The court said,“The Sessions Judge was not proper in rejecting the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, observing that in the present case already cognizance has been taken, as such anticipatory bail of the accused cannot be considered.”

The complainant K S Ravi Kumar had filed a private complaint alleging offences under Section 504, 506, 153(A), 109, 500, 501 and 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused.

The Sessions Judge referred the matter to ACP, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division, Bengaluru, for investigation. Upon conducting the investigation, a 'B' report was submitted. The complainant filed a protest petition.

Thereafter, it was stated that the court proceeded to take cognizance of the offences alleged and issued summons to the accused. Further, it is contended that it also issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused. It accordingly rejected the anticipatory bail application.

The petitioners argued that the mere fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge sheet is not a bar against the grant of anticipatory bail.

It was contended that the police on a thorough investigation had filed a 'B' report concluding that the entire allegations were baseless and the sessions judge initially issued summons on the protest petition, however, in spite of non-payment of process fee to issue summons, the judge had proceeded to issue a non-bailable warrant against the accused.

It was contended that the entire allegations made against the appellants were false and frivolous and the complainant was in the habit of filing false complaints.

It was argued that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellants are not made out and there is no prima facie case attracting the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

The complainant argued that the appellants were aware of his caste and under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim.

On going through the details mentioned in the complaint, the bench noticed that the complaint claimed that he had started facing nuisance after 3-4 months of occupying the flat such as noise disturbances, dustbin contents being scattered around the front door, tampering with his motorcycle etc.

It was alleged that the residents of the Kailash apartments were criminally conspiring and instigating others to pick up unnecessary quarrels with him to show him in bad light and as a bad person.

Further, it was stated that in spite of an e-mail to the Kailash BDA Apartment Owners Welfare Association ('KBAOWA'), no action was taken. He alleged that the  Brahmins had formed a group of their own to elect office bearers, etc.

It was submitted that when he had called upon the accused-president of KBAOWA and persuaded him to make rules or take action against the parking problem, the accused started abusing him.

It is argued that the accused spoke in an arrogant manner, shouted at him to get out of the KBAOWA office and insulted him in front of several others who were present at the office, knowing very well that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

It was also alleged that accused No.2 had come to the complainant's home and tried to convince him to drop the matter and pressurised the complainant's wife to come to the police station while threatening the complainant with dire consequences.

On a careful perusal of the arguments in the complaint, protest petition and the allegations made against the appellants, the court stated that at this stage, it cannot be said that a prima case was made out against them which would disentitle their prayer for anticipatory bail.

It said, “There is no prima facie material against the appellants, except the bald allegations. Undisputedly, a 'B' Report was filed upon investigation. On the protest petition, initially summons were issued to the appellants. The order sheet would disclose that the process fee was not paid, but the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to issue NBW. Hence, the appellants have a reasonable apprehension of their arrest.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Arun Shyam for Advocate Mattad Chidanandasawmy for Petitioners.

HCGP Vinay Mahadevaiah, FOR R1.

K.S.Ravi Kumar PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150

Case Title: Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.390 OF 2024

ClickHere To Read/Download Judgment