Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath S J @ Samrat Manju vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
CRL.A No. 667 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.667 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH S.J @ SAMRAT MANJU
S/O LATE JAYANTH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.42, 9TH CROSS
SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MUDALPALYA
BENGALURU-560 072
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally BENGALURU-560 001
signed by
MALATESH
KC 2. SMT. LEELAVATHI
Location: W/O LATE VENKATESH
HIGH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
COURT OF R/O NO.20, 5TH CROSS
KARNATAKA LAKSHMANA NAGAR
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS
BENGALURU-562 110
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(3) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
CRL.A No. 667 of 2024
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
CRL.MISC.NO.2422/2024 DATED 20.03.2024 AND ENLARGE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT, IF THE RESPONDENT
POLICE ARREST THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.105/2024 DATED
05.04.2024 FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 148, 323, 324,
327, 354, 355, 448, 504, 506, 509, 149 AND JUVENILE
JUSTICE ACT, 2000 (U/S 75), S.C AND S.T (POA) ACT, 1989
(U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF IPC 1860 BY GRANTING AN ANTICIPATORY
BAIL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as learned HCGP for respondent No.1-
State. Respondent No.2-defacto complainant served and
unrepresented.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section
14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST (POA)
Act).
3. The appellant is accused No.8 in Crime
No.105/2024 registered by Kamakshipalya Police Station
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148,
323, 324, 327, 354, 355, 448, 504, 506, 509 read with
Section 149 of IPC and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act,
2000 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. The accused approached this Court for grant of
anticipatory bail for the aforesaid offences.
5. The said bail request of the appellant was
rejected by the learned Special judge. Therefore, the
appellant is before this Court seeking for grant of
anticipatory bail.
6. Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the
appellant addressing the arguments on merits of the
matter also brought to the notice of this Court that
similarly placed accused Nos.5 and 7 are already granted
anticipatory bail by the District Court itself and rejecting
the anticipatory bail for the appellant has resulted in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposes the bail grounds by contending that
Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is a bar for entertaining
the anticipatory bail request of the appellant and sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
8. He also pointed out that the test of parity would
fail in the case on hand as the role attributable to the
present appellant is different from the role attributed to
accused Nos.5 and 7 and thus sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of material on record, it is
crystal clear that the case of the prosecution would reveal
that the complainant has been abused by taking out the
caste name in the house. Whether at all the same was
witnessed by any other general public or not is not
forthcoming on record and the same needs to be
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
investigated by the investigating agency and appropriate
provisions have to be invoked by the investigating agency
while filing the charge sheet.
11. Suffice to say that uttering of the abusive words
taking out the caste name is by the other accused and
insofar as present appellant is concerned, the allegation
made in the complaint is that he has assaulted the
complainant and her son by hands.
12. Role assigned to accused Nos.5 and 7 are
practically similar to role assigned to present appellant in
the complaint. Therefore, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the matter, the present appellant is also
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the grounds of
parity.
13. The other apprehensions of the prosecution
would be met with by imposing suitable and stringent
conditions. Further, if the appellant is directed to join the
investigation the same would also facilitate the
investigation process.
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
14. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed.
b) The appellant is directed to join the
investigation by appearing before the
investigation officer on 17.02.2025 at
about 10.00 a.m.
c) Investigation officer is at liberty to take
the appellant to custody and complete the
custodial interrogation, if any, on the very
same day before 4.00 p.m. and thereafter
enlarge the appellant on bail by taking a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
investigation officer.
d) Appellant shall co-operate with the
investigation officer in all aspects.
e) Appellant shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
NC: 2025:KHC:4621
f) Appellant shall attend the Court regularly.
g) Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Bengaluru Urban District without prior
permission.
h) Violation of any one of the conditions
would entitle the prosecution to seek for
cancellation of the bail.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
NS
