KABC010160212022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
PETITIONER/S
:
1. K.T.Venkatesh
S/o K.Thimmaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.2222/A, 9th Main,
‘E’ Block, 2nd Stage,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010.
(Rep. By Lavesh.S., Advocate)
-V/s-
RESPONDENT/S : 1. STATE BY
Yeshwanthapura Police Station,
BANGALORE
2. M.S.Jaganath
S/o Late. Siddaiah,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.462, 1st Cross, 3rd Main,
Mathikere, Bengaluru-560 054.
(Rep. By Special Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner/accused No.7 has filed this petition
under
section
438
of
Cr.P.C.,
seeking
for
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
Spl.C.No.52/2022 registered by respondent police
for the offences punishable under sections 143,
146, 201, 342, 448, 427, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and
Sec.3(1)(r)(s),
Scheduled
3(t)(v)
of
Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention
of
Castes
Atrocities)
&
Act
1989.
2.

In the petition it is stated that, petitioner is
innocent and law abiding citizen, as such he is not
at all concerned with any complicities of the
offences attributed against him but he has been
falsely involved in the case by the police at the
instance of the complainant. The petitioner at no
point of time had been to the alleged spot and he
is totally stranger to the CW1 and he has been
3
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
falsely implicated in the above case on the sole
ground that the accused No.5 is his wife and the
accused No.1 to 4 are his relatives. Accused No.1
to 5 have been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble
Court in Crl.Misc.No.3870/2020 dated 18.08.2020.
Hence, he is also entitled for bail on ground of
parity. One Alamelamma(Accused No.6) had gifted
the property in question to accused No.4, who is
the mother of Champa and said Champa by
colluding with her husband got executed Gift deed
pertaining to the property in her favour and tried to
evict the inmates of the said property and when
accused No.6 came to know of the illegal act of the
Champa
and
her
husband,
she
initiated
proceedings seeking for cancellation of the Gift
Deed executed by the accused No.4 in favour of
Champa and the said Appeal came to be allowed.
After coming to know of the order in the appeal, in
order to grab the property by illegal means, they
4
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
have foisted a false case in collusion with CW1 to
harass and humiliate the petitioner and to compel
him to vacate the premises. Name of this petitioner
was not reflect in FIR or complaint. When police
came in search on NBW issued against him he
came to know about this case. He is having aged
parents who are totally depending upon him as he
is sole earning members of their family. Petitioner
is no way concerned with the crime and he is
coming from good and respectable family and the
allegations made are false. Further it is stated that
he has got good and tenable defence. Petitioner is
permanent resident of the given address in the
cause title. Petitioner hails from respectable family
having not only reputation in the society, he also
has both movable and immovable properties at his
native. He is not required for further investigation.
Petitioner
undertakes
to
cooperate
with
the
investigation agency. The petitioner is ready and
5
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
willing to furnish tangible surety to the satisfaction
of this Hon’ble Court and also is willing to abide
with the terms and conditions to be imposed on
him. Hence, prays to grant of bail.
3.

After institution of this petition, the notice is
ordered to be issued to the complainant. On
service of the same, he failed to appear before this
Court.

4.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed
detailed objection opposing the bail petition on
various grounds and reiterated averments of
compliant and contended that case is under
investigation which prima facie case is make out.
If the petitioner is released on bail, he may
tamper
with
the
evidence
or
threaten
the
witnesses, may abscond or may commit similar
offences.

There is clear bar u/s 18A of S.C./S.T.

(P.O.A.) Act to grant anticipatory bail. Thus, sought
for rejection of petition.

6
5.

Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
Heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the records.

6.

The following points arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1. Whether the bail petition filed
by the petitioner under Section
438 of Cr.P.C., is maintainable?
2. Whether the petitioner has
made out a ground for grant of
anticipatory bail?
3. What Order?

7.

My answers to the above points are;
Point No.1:–
In the “Affirmative”
Point No.2:–
In the “Affirmative”
Point No.3:-
As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
8.

POINT NO.1 & 2 : The materials placed on record
would go to show that the respondent Police have
registered the case in Crime No.110/2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148,
427, 448, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)
7
(s)
of
Scheduled
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. After
investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the
offence 146, 201, 342, 448, 427, 506 r/w 149 of
IPC and Sec.3(1), (r), (s), 3(t), (v) of Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989. The Case of the prosecution is that, the
complainant has been entered into an agreement
of lease with the owner of the property in which he
is running an office by name “Lokashakthi” and
when there was an interference to his possession
he has also instituted a suit and his possession is
protected by interim order of the court.

It is
further alleged that on 18.6.2020 the accused
persons armed with deadly weapons abused him
in filthy language with reference to his caste and
also caused damage to the equipments of the
office and also photo of the Dr. Baba Saheb
8
Ambedkar
and
caused
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
loss
to
the
tune
of
Rs.25,00,000/-.
9.

At the very outset, Mr.V.Shriram, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
state has taken a preliminary objection as regard
the maintainability of the present petition for grant
of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., on the basis
that section 18
and 18-A of the SC/ST Act bars
application of section 438 of Cr.P.C to any case
involving
an
accusation
that
a
person
has
committed an offence under that statute. Further
the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that
section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act applies to the
present case since section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(t)(v) of that
Act has been added to the offences alleged against
the petitioner.
10. Per contra Sri.Laveesh.S., the learned counsel for
petitioner argued that this court has got jurisdiction
9
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
to consider this petition for grant of anticipatory bail
as the bar on the applicability of section 438 of
Cr.P.C shall not apply to the cases under the SC/ST
Act when the complaint does not make out a prima
facie case for applicability of the provisions of the
Act.
11. With the rival contentions urged by both sides, it is
just and necessary to go through the materials
available on record. On close reading of sections 18
and 18A of the SC and ST Act it reads as under;
“Section 18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply
to persons committing an offence under the Act.
Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in
relation to any case involving the arrest of any
person on an accusation of having committed an
offence under this Act.
Section 18A. No enquiry or approval required
I) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a first information report against
any person; or (b) the investigating officer shall
not require approval for the arrest, if necessary,
of any person,
10
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
against whom an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act has been
made and no procedure other than that
provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.
2) The provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall
not apply to a case under this Act,
notwithstanding any judgement or order or
direction of any Court.”
12. On going through the said sections, it clearly goes
to show that if prima-facie there is any allegation
made by the complainant and the accusation is
made, prima-facie indicating the offence under the
said Act, under such circumstances, the bar will be
there to exercise the power under section 438 of
Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail. Admittedly,
Section 18 and 18-A of SC/ST (POA) Act creates a
bar for invoking section 438 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 SC/ST (POA) Act 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
11
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
with caste name the accused is not entitle for
anticipatory bail as held by the Hon’ble Apex court
in Prathvi Raj Chauhan V/s Union of India &
others. On the background of above provisions of
law and also pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex
Court, it is just and proper to go through the
contents of complaint lodged by the complainant
before the police.
13. After meticulously going through the contents of
chargesheet it is forthcoming that the complainant
is said to be abused by accused No.1 by taking his
caste name and there is there is no specific
allegation against present petitioner stating that
the present petitioner abused the complainant by
taking the name of caste. No prima facie case is
made out to attract the provisions of SC & ST(POA)
Act. In the case on hand the police have already
filed charge sheet and the custodial interrogation
may not be required. Furthermore, The rest of the
12
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
accused are already enlarged on anticipatory bail
by
this
Court.

The
offences
alleged
is
not
punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence,
it can be held that petitioner is entitled for grant of
anticipatory
bail
as
per
the
dictum
Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prithviraj Chauhan
and Another. Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 are
answered in the Affirmative.

14.

Point No.3: In view of my findings on Point No.1 &
2, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is hereby
allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail in the event of his arrest in
Spl.C.No.52/2022
on
execution
of
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one
13
Crl.Misc.No.5967/2022
surety for the likesum subject to the
following;
CONDITIONS
1. The petitioner shall appear
before the court on all the dates
of hearing.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper
the evidence or influence/deter
the witnesses nor shall he do
anything prejudicial to peace
and order in the civil society.
3. The petitioner shall not indulge
in committing any offences
(Typed my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected,
signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 30 th day of June,
2022).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.