Shiva Kumar .M vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

M G Uma, J

The appellant-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(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.151/2025 of Subramanyapura Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Smt. Pallavi.S.

Heard Sri. C.V.Srinivasa, learned Counsel for the appellant, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State and Sri. H.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 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 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

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

REASONS

The wife of the appellant has filed the first information alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST Act. It is the contention of the complainant that she was in love with accused No.1 since 2016 and they got married on 19.11.2023. She refers to few incidents that had occurred before marriage to contend that she was humiliated by the accused referring to her caste. She also states that even after marriage, she was not treated properly and she was humiliated by the accused.

It is pertinent to note that the informant is employee in State Bank of India and the appellant is working in GESCOM, Bellari. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for further investigation. Admittedly, accused Nos. 2 to 4 are already on bail. Considering the nature of the allegations and the relationship between the parties, I am of the opinion, that the appellant 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 appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.151/2025 of Subramanyapura Police Station.

The appellant is 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 appellant 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 appellant shall not commit similar offences;

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

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

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, 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.