Chandrashekhar vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

M G Uma, J

The appellant-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in Crime No.05/2025 of Kaggalipura Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'the BNS), 2023 and for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Smt.Nirmala.

Heard Sri Aruna Shyam M., learned Senior Advocate for Sri Renukaradhya R.D. learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional Spl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

It is contended by the learned senior advocate that the appellant is the sole accused and was apprehended on 06.01.2025 for the above said offences. Since then, he is in judicial custody. Admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. As per the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, it is suspected that the accused and the deceased were having illicit relationship as they were residing in separate portions of the same building. The other circumstance highlighted by the prosecution is that the hallow block used as the weapon in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused, which is considered as an important circumstance to connect the accused to the offence in question. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt after full-fledged trial.

It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is having any criminal antecedent. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the detention of the accused in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Therefore, the appellant may be granted bail subject to conditions which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.05/2025 of Kaggalipura Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.