anticipatory bail = Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for anticipatory bail - when accused is also belongs to SC community- prima faice, SC and SC Act not applies, other sections are bailable offences - hence accused are entitled for anticipatory bail = GETTAM SRINIVASA RAO & 4 OTHERS VS THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY P.P., HYD. = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLP&mno=3401&year=2013

Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  and for anticipatory bail - when accused is also belongs to SC community- prima faice, SC and SC Act not applies, other sections are bailable offences - hence accused are entitled for anticipatory bail =
The petitioners seek for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
A.1 and A.4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply to them. He has produced the caste certificates of A.1 and A.4 showing that they belong to SC community.  Consequently, no prima facie case can be made out against A.1 and A.4 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
Once the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act is not made out, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.  The offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are bailable.  The provision of anticipatory bail, consequently, does not lie.  Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant anticipatory bail, through this petition.
CRLP 3401 / 2013
CRLPSR 11446 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
GETTAM SRINIVASA RAO & 4 OTHERS  VSTHE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY P.P., HYD.
PET.ADV. : NAGESHWAR RAO PAPPURESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.438 Cr.p.c Anticipatory BailDISTRICT:  KRISHNA
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

Crl. Petition No.3401 of 2013

Date: 22.04.2013

Between:

Gettam Srinivasa Rao
and 4 others.                                                        .. Petitioners/
                                                                                A.1 to A.5
                   AND

The State of A.P.,
rep.by Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.                                       .. Respondent/
                                                                                Complainant

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Crl. Petition No.3401 of 2013
ORDER:

          The petitioners seek for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
[the SC/ST Act, for short]. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act specifically proscribes grant of anticipatory bail.
2.       The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution prima facie failed in establishing the case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 
3.       I may first of all point out that the offences other than the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act are so minor that it would be advisable to enlarge the petitioners on bail, as both the offences are bailable.  However, as the petitioners allegedly committed the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, it becomes necessary to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail or otherwise.
4.       The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that A.1 and A.4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply to them. He has produced the caste certificates of A.1 and A.4 showing that they belong to SC community.  Consequently, no prima facie case can be made out against A.1 and A.4 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
The question is whether a prima facie case is made out against A.2, A.3 and A.5 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
5.       The allegation against all the petitioners is that the petitioners misbehaved with the de facto complainant making invitation to her by attacking her in indecent manner.  The alleged offence at best is the offence u/s.354 IPC but not one under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.  It is also alleged by the de facto complainant that the accused alleged that the de facto complainant belongs to ST community and questioned whether the de facto complainant would like to continue in the job or otherwise.  This is all what the petitioners stated regarding the community of the de facto complainant.
6.       I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged comment of the petitioners against the de facto complainant is not an abuse of the de facto complainant touching upon the community, so much so, the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST Act prima facie is not made out.
7.       Once the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act is not made out, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.  The offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are bailable.  The provision of anticipatory bail, consequently, does not lie.  Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant anticipatory bail, through this petition.
8.       Consequently, the Criminal Petition is disposed of holding that the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of SC & ST Act prima facie is not made out against the petitioners.  However, liberty is given to the petitioners to invoke due process of law for grant of bail otherwise.
                                                                           _______________
                                                                           K.G. Shankar, J
Date: 22.04.2013
Isn

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.