Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Neslin vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8187
CRL.A No. 279 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.279 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED NESLIN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SUDHIR
R/AT NO. 02, 3RD FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
MUNESHWAR NAGAR
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANASHANKARI
BANGALORE 560 068
PERMANENT RESIDENTOF
KUJIKANDATTILLA HOUSE CHULUR VILLAGE
KONDANGULLUR TALUK
KERALA 673601
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
signed by
MALATESH AND:
KC
Location: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH BY SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION
COURT OF REPRSENTED BY
KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE 560 001
2. AKSHAY KUMAR
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O AMIT KUMAR
R/A NO.66, 6TH CROSS, RHCR LAYUOT
ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8187
CRL.A No. 279 of 2025
NAAGARABHAAVI BDA COMPLEX
BANGALORE 560 091
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. KUMAR R. D., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.01.2025 IN SPL.
C.C.No.2226/2023 IN CR. No.157/2023 OF SUDDAGUNTE
PALYA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 324,326 OF IPC, U/S
3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXX
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT BANGALORE AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR
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. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the
appellant; Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State and Sri. Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The appeal is by the accused 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 brevity).
NC: 2025:KHC:8187
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. In respect of an incident said to have occurred on
20.06.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., a complaint came to be lodged
in Crime No.157/2023 by Suddaguntepalya Police Station.
Initially the offence alleged against the appellant was under
Section 324 of IPC. However, during the course of
investigation, the investigating officer was able to collect some
materials which would attract the offence under Section 326 of
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
3.2. Having enlarged the appellant on bail by the police
themselves when the offence alleged against the appellant was
under Section 324 of IPC, the appellant came to be re-arrested
by the police and sent to judicial custody after invoking Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 326 of IPC.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader and
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned
judgment and vehemently opposed the appeal.
5. The learned Trial Judge failed to note the said
aspect of the matter, inasmuch as, when once the police
NC: 2025:KHC:8187
themselves have enlarged the appellant on bail, the appellant
could not have been re-arrested. Nevertheless, the learned
Trial Judge was required to issue summons to secure the
presence of the appellant. But Trial Judge has directly issued
warrant and pursuant to the warrant, appellant came to be
arrested.
6. Taking note of the attendant facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that continuation of the appellant in judicial custody is
no longer warranted. More so, having regard to the fact that
the charge sheet is filed and investigation is concluded.
7. The other apprehensions of the prosecution can be
met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.
8. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The appellant is enlarged on bail by taking a
bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties,
of which one is a local surety, for the like sum,
to the satisfaction of the trial court.
NC: 2025:KHC:8187
iii) The appellant shall not hamper the prosecution
witnesses.
iv) The appellant shall attend the Court regularly.
v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Bengaluru Urban District, without prior
permission of the trial court.
vi) Violation of any one of the conditions would
entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of
bail.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a
copy of this judgment, for passing the modified conviction
warrant, forthwith.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RD
