BENGALURU – A Special Court in Bengaluru has granted anticipatory bail to K.T. Venkatesh, an accused in a case involving alleged criminal trespass and violations of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The ruling, delivered by Sri Prakash V., the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), highlights the judicial threshold required to invoke the statutory bar against anticipatory bail in atrocity cases.
Background of the Case
The case, registered as Spl.C.No.52/2022, originated from a complaint filed by M.S. Jaganath at the Yeshwanthapura Police Station. The prosecution alleged that on June 18, 2020, a group of individuals, including the petitioner K.T. Venkatesh (Accused No. 7), forcibly entered an office named “Lokashakthi.” The office was reportedly run by the complainant under a lease agreement.
According to the charge sheet, the accused persons were allegedly armed with deadly weapons and used filthy language, specifically hurling caste-based slurs at the complainant to humiliate him. Furthermore, the prosecution alleged that the group caused significant property damage, including the destruction of office equipment and a photograph of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, resulting in a total estimated loss of Rs. 25,00,000.
Legal Hurdles and the Maintainability of Bail
The primary challenge for the petitioner was Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. These provisions generally prohibit courts from granting anticipatory bail to individuals accused of offences under the Act. During the proceedings, the Special Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petition was not maintainable due to this statutory bar.
However, the defense counsel, Sri Lavesh S., argued that the bar is not absolute. He contended that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case (on the face of it) for the applicability of the Act, the court maintains the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The defense further pointed out that K.T. Venkatesh was not named in the initial FIR and only became aware of the case when a non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against him.
The Court’s Reasoning and the “Prithvi Raj Chauhan” Precedent
In determining the maintainability of the petition, Judge Prakash V. referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Prithvi Raj Chauhan V/s Union of India. The apex court had clarified that if the complaint does not prima facie indicate a case under the SC/ST Act, the bar on anticipatory bail does not apply.
Upon a meticulous review of the charge sheet, the court found a significant detail: the specific allegations of abusing the complainant with caste-based slurs were directed at Accused No. 1, rather than the petitioner, K.T. Venkatesh. The court observed that there was no specific allegation in the record stating that Venkatesh himself had used caste-based names or insults against the complainant.
Ground of Parity and Final Order
The court also took into consideration the “ground of parity.” It was noted that Accused No. 1 through 5 had already been enlarged on bail in earlier proceedings. Furthermore, the court observed that the police had already completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, meaning that the custodial interrogation of Venkatesh was no longer necessary for the progress of the case.
Considering that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, and that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru with deep roots in the society, the court decided to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner.
Conditions of the Bail
The court allowed the petition and ordered that K.T. Venkatesh be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety for a like-sum.
- The petitioner must appear before the court on all hearing dates without fail.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence or attempting to influence or deter witnesses.
- The petitioner must maintain peace and order and refrain from committing any similar offences in the future.
This ruling underscores the necessity for specific allegations when invoking the stringent provisions of the Atrocities Act and ensures that individuals are protected from arrest where a prima facie case for such specific violations is lacking.