Ramesh & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

M G Uma, J

The appellants -accused Nos.1 to 3 are 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 SC/ST Act’ for short) in the event of their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodihalli Police Station, pending before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 75, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Shivarathna.

Heard Sri V B Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP 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 appellants are 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:

R E A S O N S

On the basis of first information lodged by respondent No.5, Crime No.39 of 2025 came to be registered for the above said offences against accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the appellants herein. It is the contention of the appellants that appellant No.2 had filed a criminal case against the respondents alleging commission of similar offences, which was registered in Crime No.38 of 2025. According to the appellants, as a counter blast, the present complaint came to be filed making similar allegations and also invoking the provisions of special enactment only to see that the appellants are apprehended and detained in custody.

It is also the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are already granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.38 of 2025. When similar allegations are made in the case and counter case and in the case that was registered at the first instance, the respondents are already granted anticipatory bail, I do not find any reason to reject the prayer made by the appellants.

It is not the contention of learned Additional SPP that the appellants are required for custodial interrogation. The appellants are not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellants may be granted anticipatory 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 appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodihalli Police Station, pending before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

The appellants are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

a. The appellants shall furnish the bonds in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

b. The appellants shall not commit similar offences;

c. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

d. The appellants shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.