Karnataka High Court
Devaraj. K. P vs State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2201 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
DEVARAJ K. P.
S/O PUTTEGOWDA B.D.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT KODALU VILLAGE,
KELAGOOR POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
TALUK AND DISTRICT-577548.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. DEVARAJ M.C.,
S/O CHINNA BOVI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT MEDARAHALLI,
ESHWARAHALLI POST,
LAKHYA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27.10.2025 PASSED
-2-
CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025
IN CRL.MISC.NO.519/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN
CR.NO.175/2025 REGISTERED AT TOWN P.S.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 351(2),
352 R/W 3(5) OF IPC, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST
(POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, WITH A DIRECTION TO
RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN THE SAID CRIME.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 18.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
Appellant has preferred this appeal against order dated 27th October 2025, passed in Criminal Misc.No.519 of 2025 by the I Additional Sessions & Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru (for short "the trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Devaraj M.C., Chikkamagalur Town Police registered a case in Crime No.175 of 2025 against accused 1 to 3 for offence punishable and sections 352, 115(2) and 351(2) read with section 3(5) of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (PoA) Act. Appellant-Accused 1 and 2 have filed -3- CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025 application under section 482 of BNS 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. Learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the application by granting bail to petitioner No.2 and rejected the bail application filed by petitioner No.1 (the appellant herein). Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail, Petitioner No.1/appellant, has preferred this appeal.
3. Sri N.V. Srikanth, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in rejecting the bail application and the same is opposed to facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case. He would submit that the complainant is silent about the date of incident. Even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value, the same does not constitute any offence against the present appellant. The allegation made against the appellant in the FIR are absolutely false, motivated, and intended only to tarnish his image. He would further submit that, to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the intention of the accused must be established. In the case on hand, there is no such evidence made out. The trial court has rejected the bail application on the ground that there was some financial transaction between the Appellant and Respondent No.2, which is admitted by the appellant. Use of abusive words, -4- CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025 without intention to humiliate on the ground of caste and without the same being in public view, does not constitute an offence under the penal provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The trial Court has enlarged Accused No.2 on bail, but without assigning proper and cogent reasons, has rejected the bail application preferred by the present appellant. There are no medical records or wound certificates produced to depict any injury, allegedly caused to respondent No.2. Only with an intention of harassing the appellant, respondent No.2 has taken undue advantage of his caste and lodged a false complaint. To substantiate his argument, he relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAJAN SKARIYA v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in 2024 SUPREME (SC)
688. On the above grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal.
4. As against this, Smt. Asma Kauser, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the material on record. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. She would submit that there are prima-facie materials to attract the penal provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Hence, there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act to grant -5- CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025 anticipatory bail. On all these grounds, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have examined the materials placed before this court. On the basis of complaint filed by one Devaraj M.C., Chikkamagalur Town Police have registered case in Crime No.175 of 2025 against Devaraj-Accused No.1 and Virupaksha- Accused No.2 and one unknown person as accused No.3 for the offence punishable under sections 352, 115(2) and 351(2) read with section 3(5) of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
6. It is relevant to extract the complaint filed by the complainant. The same reads as under:
" ಷಯ: ನನ ೕ ೆ ಹ ೆ ಾ ಾ ಂದ£É ಾ ರುವ ಬ ೆ
ದೂರು.
ಾನು ೕಲ ಂಡ "ಾಸದ$ %ಾಸ%ಾ&ರು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ, ಸು ಾರು 1 ªÀgÉ
ವಷ*ಗಳ -ಂ.ೆ .ೇವ/ಾಜ, %ಾಸ: PÉÆÃqÁ¼ÀÄ, ಮೂ ೆ/ೆ 'ಾಲೂಕು
ಈತನು ಲ5ಾ6 ಾ7ಮದ ಾ .ಾ8ಗ ಬಂದು 9ೕಜದ ಶುಂ;ಯನು ಒಂದು
=ೕಲ5ೆ ರೂ.6,500 ಗಳಂ'ೆ ಾತ ಾ 60 9ೕಜದ ಶುಂ;=ೕಲಗಳನು
'ೆ ೆದು5ೊಂಡು >ೋ&ರು'ಾ( ೆ. ಇದರ ಒಟುA ಹಣ ರೂ.3,90,000 ಗಳC ಆ&ರುತ(.ೆ. ಈ ಹಣವನು 5ೊ ಎಂದು 5ೇF.ಾಗ ಾ"ೆ ಾ ದು8 ಮುಂGನ ಂಗಳC ಎಂದು ಸಬೂ§Ä >ೇF5ೊಂಡು ಹಣವನು 5ೊಡ.ೆ ಸ'ಾHಸು (ದ8, Dಗ ಾನು 5ೋIಾ¼ÀÄ ಾ7ಮ5ೆ >ೋ& .ೇವ/ಾಜುರವರ$ ಶುಂ; ¨Á¥ÀÄÛ ಹಣವನು 5ೇF.ಾಗ ಅ$ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ನನ ೆ CªÁåZÀåªÁV Kೈದು ºÉದMN ಕಳC-Nದ8ರು. ಈ&ರು%ಾಗ ನನ ¨Á§ÄÛ ಹಣವನು .ೇವ/ಾಜರವMಂದ -6- CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025 5ೊ N5ೊ ಎಂದು =ಕ ಮಗಳOರು ಾ7 ಾಂತರ P$ೕQ oÁuÉUÉ ದೂರು ಅR*ಯನು ೕ zÉÝ, ಇದರ ಸಂಬಂಧ Cfð TಾರUೆ ೆಂದು ಾ7 ಾಂತರ P$ೕQ ಅವರು ನನ ನು ಮತು( ಎದುರು.ಾರ/ಾದ : .ೇವ/ಾಜು gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ oÁuÉUÉ PÀgɬĹ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀªÀĸÉå §UɺÀj¹PÉÆ½î ºÉý oÁuɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÝgÀÄ. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7-30 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ mÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ zÉêÀgÁd£À ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JA§ ¹lÖ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆA¸ÀAvÀ zÉêÀgÁd£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ KPÁKQ £À£ÀUÉ PÉʬÄAzÀ ¨É¤ßUÉ vÀ¯ÉUÉ ªÀÄÆVUÉ, ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ JzÉUÉ, ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ªÀqÀØeÁw ಸೂ"ೆಮಕ ಳ, ನನ ೕ ೆ ೆ PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ CಷುA Vೈಯ*£Á ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß 5ೊ ೆ ಾ ೈ$ ೆ >ೋಗು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು 5ೊ ೆKೆದM5ೆ >ಾWರು'ಾ( ೆ. .ೇವ/ಾಜನ >ಾಗೂ ಆತನ ೊ'ೆಯ°è ಬಂGದ8 ರೂXಾY ಮತು( ಮ'ೊ(ಬZರ >ೆಸರು ನನ ೆ ೊ (ಲ, ಇವರು ಕೂಡ ನನ ೆ .ೈ-ಕ%ಾ& 5ೈಗFಂದ ಮತು( 5ಾ$ ಂದ >ೊIೆದು ನನ ನು ಅವರು ತಂGದ8 5ಾMನ$ ಬಲವಂತ%ಾ& ತುಂ95ೊಳ[ಲು >ೋ.ಾಗ ೋ ದಂತಹ ನನ ೊ'ೆಯ$ದ8 ಮಂಜ\ೋ , ನಂಜುಂಡ, ಅಣ]ಯ6 ಮತು( ಮದ£ïgÀವರು ೕಲ ಂಡ ಮೂವMಂದ ನನ ನು 9 N5ೊಂ ರು'ಾ(/ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ಸ5ಾ*M ಎಂ R ಆಸ_'ೆ7 ೆ .ಾಖ®Ä ಾ ರು'ಾ(/ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ ೆಯ ಬ ೆ ನಗರ P$ೕQ oÁuÉAiÀÄ P$ೕಸರು ಬಂ.ಾಗ ನಮb ಊMನ -Mಯರು ಮತು( ಮುಖಂಡರ$ ಚ=*N ದೂರು ೕಡುವe.ಾ& FN.ೆ8, ನಂತರದ$ ನಮb ಮ ೆಯವರು >ಾಗೂ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ$ ಚ=*N ಮತು( -Mಯರ$ ಚ=*N ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ಬ ೆ 5ಾನೂನು ಕ7ಮಜರು&ಸKೇ5ೆಂದು ೕ ಾ* N ಈ Gನ G ಾಂಕ 09.10.2025 ರಂದು fಾUೆ ೆ ತಡ%ಾ& ಬಂದು ೕಲ ಂಡ .ೇವ/ಾಜ, ರುXಾY ಮತು( ಆತನ ೊ'ೆಯ$ದ8 ಇ ೊ ಬZರ ೕ ೆ 5ಾನೂನು ಕ7ಮ 5ೈ ೊಳ[Kೇ5ೆಂದು ಈ ದೂರನು ೕಡು (.ೆ8ೕ ೆ."
7. On perusal of complaint, it is noticed that the alleged incident took place on 5th October, 2025 at 19:30 hours. The complaint came to be filed on 9th October, 2025. In Column No.3(c) of the First Information Report, it is stated that, the complainant has discussed with the elders of the -7- CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025 village and family members and thereafter as per their advice, he has lodged the complaint with the police, after lapse of four days. It is not in dispute that the trial court has already granted bail to accused No.2. At this stage, the delay in filing the complaint will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged incident. Though the police have registered case on 9th October, 2025, till this day, the investigating officer has not taken any steps to arrest this accused. The investigating officer has also not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 35 of BNSS, 2023. The conduct of Investigating Officer reveals that, at present, the accused is not required for interrogation/investigation. The commission of alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Till this date, investigating officer has not recorded the statement of witnesses who were present at the time of alleged incident. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, antecedents of the appellant, it is just and proper to allow this appeal with conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 27th October, 2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.519 of 2025 by the I Additional -8- CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025 Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in respect of the present appellant, is set aside;
iii) Appellant/accused No.1 shall be released on bail on executing a self bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of his arrest in Crime No.175 of 2025, on the file of Town Police Station, Chikkamagaluru;
iv) Appellant/accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or to any Police Officer;
v) Appellant/accused No.1 shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as required;
vi) Appellant/accused No.1 shall not involve himself in commission of similar offences.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn