Karnataka High Court

Sri Nataraju H S vs State By on 17 February, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                        -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:7018
                                               CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2024


            BETWEEN:

            1.    SRI. NATARAJU H.S,
                  S/O SRI. N. NANJUNDAIAH,
                  AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                  OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
                  RESIDING AT NO. 120, 7TH CROSS,
                  5TH MAIN ROAD, DEVANATHCHAR STREET,
                  NEAR ADHARSHA COLLEGE,
                  VENKATARAMANAGAR, CHAMRAJPET,
                  BENGALURU - 560 018.

            2.    SRI. KIRAN KUMAR B.M,
                  W/O SRI MADEVASWAMY,
                  AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally         RESIDING AT NO. 1061, 8TH CROSS,
signed by
MALATESH          2ND BLOCK, BSK I STAGE,
KC                BENGALURU -560 050.
Location:                                                ...APPELLANTS
HIGH
COURT OF    (BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
            AND:

            1.    STATE BY HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION,
                  HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050,
                  DULY REPRESENTED BY
                  STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:7018
                                    CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024




     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   SRI. ANNAPPA K.R,
     S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT
     C/O CHANDRODAYA THEATRE,
     VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE,
     HANUMANTHANAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 050.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. B.R. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THE APPEAL SET ASIDE ORDER
DATED 06.12.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.10632/2024 PASSED BY
THE HONBLE COURT OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71)
REJECTING THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL PETITION MADE THE
APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 U/S.482 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING
BAIL TO PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.290/2024 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 351(2), 351(3) OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s),
OF SC/ST ACT 1989 ON THE COMPLIANT MADE BY THE
RESPONDENT     NO.2   AGAINST     THE   PETITIONERS    AND
CONSEQUENTLY.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                                     -3-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:7018
                                                CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024




                          ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manjunath for the

appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader and the

learned counsel Sri. B.R. Sreevatsa for the defacto

complainant.

2. Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act hereinafter referred to as 'SC ST Act'.

3. Appeal is filed with the following prayers:

A. Call for the records of Crl.Misc. No 10632/2024 disposed on the file of Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-71)

B. Allow the appeal Set aside order dated 6/12/2024 in Crl.Misc No 10632/2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) rejecting the anticipatory bail petition made the Appellant No 1&2 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail to

NC: 2025:KHC:7018

petitioners in the Crime No 290/2024 registered by the respondent No 1 for the offence punishable under Section 351(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (1) (r),

(s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 on the complaint made by the respondent No 2 against the petitioners and consequently,

C. Grant the anticipatory bail to appellant No.1&2 in the Crime No 290 / 2024 registered by the respondent No 1 for the offence punishable under Section 351(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (1) (r), (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 on the complaint made by the respondent No 2 on the file of Hon'ble Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71).

D. Pass/grant such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass/grant in the interest of justice.

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by the 2nd respondent

on 17.11.2024 contending that he is working under Sri.

Vasudevarao Rao as Canteen Assistant in many cinema

theatres. While so discharging his duty on 16.11.2024 at

NC: 2025:KHC:7018

about 4.30 p.m., when he was sitting at balcony at a

cinema theatre, accused No.2 who was working in booking

counter, came there and abused him in a filthy language

taking out his caste name so as to degrade him. Same was

reported to the Contractor. At that time, son of said Sri.

Vasudeva Rao by name Suhas intervened and questioned

accused No.2 as to why he is scolding the complainant, as

he is employee under him and accused No.2 has no

business whatsoever to scold his employee. At that

juncture, said Suhas (son of Sri. Vasudeva Rao) was also

abused by accused No.2. The incident was reported to the

police and a complaint came to be lodged in Crime

No.290/2024 with Hanumanthapura Police Station,

Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections

3(1)(r), (s) of SC/ST Act and Section 351(2) and 351(3) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

5. After registering the case, Police have

investigated the matter. In the meantime, the appellant

sought for grant of anticipatory bail and the learned Trial

NC: 2025:KHC:7018

Judge rejected the same primarily on the ground that

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is the bar. Thereafter the

appellants are before this Court.

6. The learned counsel Sri. Manjunath for the

appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

memorandum contending that on overall reading of the

entire complaint averments, it is crystal clear that there

was no degrading of the complainant in the public view

which is a sine qua non for attracting the offence under

Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/ST Act, so as to consider the

embargo under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. In the case

on hand, such ingredients are not found in the complaint

itself and other materials placed before the Court and

therefore, this Court may consider the request of grant of

anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader and the counsel for the 2nd respondent opposed

the bail grounds with vehemence.

NC: 2025:KHC:7018

8. They would further contend that whether at all

there was an abuse by taking out the caste name hurled

on the complainant in the public view or not cannot be

decided by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial

and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

bestowed its' best attention to the material on record. On

bear reading of complaint averments itself, it is clear that

when the incident has taken place, except the complainant

and the accused, there were no other persons so as to find

out the prima facie materials to attract the offence under

Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC ST Act. The other

offences alleged against the accused are simple enough so

as to deny the grant of anticipatory bail.

10. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and

also taking note of the fact that the investigation is also

crippled, to a considerable extent for want of presence of

the appellants, if the appellants are directed to join the

NC: 2025:KHC:7018

investigation and limited custodial interrogation if ordered,

ends of justice would be met.

11. In the absence of prima facie materials, bar

under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not be applicable

to the case on hands.

12. Accordingly, following order:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) Appellants are directed to join the

investigation by appearing before the Investigation

Officer on 24.02.2025 at 10.00 a.m.,

(iii) Investigating Officer is at liberty to take

the appellants to the custody and complete the

custodial investigation on the same day before 3.00

P.M. and thereafter enlarge the appellants on bail by

taking a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one

surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

Investigation Officer.

NC: 2025:KHC:7018

(iv) Appellants shall not tamper the

prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(v) Appellants shall appear before the

Investigation Officer or learned Trial Judge as and

when directed.

(vi) Appellants shall mark their attendance

every 3rd Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 2.00 P.M

till the final report is filed.

(vii) Appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction

of the Bangalore District without prior permission.

(viii) Violation of any one of the conditions