THE FIR DISCLOSES THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT’S SON WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY IN THE GROUND BECAUSE OF HIS CASTE. POLITICAL RIVALRY IS JUST A DEFENCE PROJECTED BY THE APPELLANT AT THIS STAGE, WHICH REQUIRES INVESTIGATION SAYS: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Ganesha L D vs State By on 23 November, 2022 (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1816 OF 2022) presided by the hon’ble justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar stated that This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [in short “SC/ST Act”, challenging the correctness of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge , Chitradurga in Crl.Misc.No.1053/2022, by which he rejected the applicant’s application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail in connection with crime No. 181/2022 registered by the 1st defendant police for offenses punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC and § 3 para. 1 letter r) (s) of the SC/ST Act as amended by Section 34 of the IPC.
FACT OF THE CASE
FIR was registered on 15.09.2022 at 09.30pm, in relation to an incident dated 14.09.2022. The allegation is that when the second respondent’s son went to the playground of the High School of the village, the appellant herein and another accused, namely, Abhishek, did not allow him to play. It is alleged that because the second respondent’s son belonged to the ‘Nayaka’ community, the appellant and the another accused said that he should not play there. There is another allegation that the appellant and another accused assaulted the second respondent’s son severely causing severe injuries and then threatened to kill him.
JUDGMENT
the hon’ble justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar observed I have read the impugned order and also the FIR. The FIR states that the second respondent’s son was not allowed to play on the ground because of his caste. Political rivalry is only the defense projected by the petitioner in this regard a stage that requires investigation. It cannot be concluded that the false complaint was filed against the petitioner against the background of political rivalry. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is very applicable to a circumstance like this. The court below is entitled to reject the application. I find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is rejected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR