Mr. Sameer vs The State
2025 Latest Caselaw 2778 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Sameer vs The State on 23 January, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                       -1-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC:3043
                                              CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2398 OF 2024
            BETWEEN:

            1.    MR. SAMEER
                  S/O HAKEEKULLA,
                  AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                  R/AT NO 56, NEAR BUSSTAND,
                  ANJANAPURA POST, SHIKARIPURA TQ,
                  SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                  PIN :577201
                                                          ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI H MALATESH, ADVOCATE)
            AND:

            1.    THE STATE
                  THROUGH THE HOSAMANE POLICE STATION,
                  BHADRAVATHI SUB-DVN,
                  SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                  (REPRESENTED BY THE
                  STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally
signed by         HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MALATESH          BANGALORE)- 01
KC
Location:   2.
HIGH              SMT HANUMANTHAPPA
COURT OF          W/O LATE JAYARAMA,
KARNATAKA         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                  HOUSE WIFE
                  R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR 11TH CROSS,
                  HOSAMANE, BADRAVATHI TOWN,
                  SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
                  PIN : 577245
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
            (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
            SRI NAGENDRA B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:3043
                                        CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF REGULAR
BAIL TO THE APPELLANT, BY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.11.2024 IN SPL.C.NO.5030/2024 OF IV ADDL. DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI
IN CR.NO.128/2024 OF HOSAMANE P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 87, 308(2), 3(5) THE SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT
ACT, 2015, U/S 3(1)(r)s, 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), (IPC
U/S 376, 506).

    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 H. Malatesh, learned counsel for the appellant,

Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent No.1 and Sri Nagendra B., learned counsel

for the respondent No.2.

2. Appellant is seeking for grant of bail in respect of

Spl.C.No.5030/2024, on the file of IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathii.

3. Accused is alleged with the offences punishable

under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under

Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (b) (va) of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

2015.

NC: 2025:KHC:3043

4. Gist of the allegations found in the complaint is that

on 30.08.2024 at about 9.30 p.m., complainant lodged the

compliant contending that at about 8.30 p.m., on the same day

when the complainant was with her granddaughter, somebody

knocked the door and at that juncture, two boys were found and

she informed the complainant that they are acquainted with her

and their names are Sameer and Rahid. Complainant asked her

as to why they have come and at that juncture, Sameer said to

have shown the granddaughter of the complainant that he is

intending to marry her. At that juncture, there was an oral

altercation. When the offer made by Sameer was refused, it is

contended that Sameer is said to have used abusive words

taking out the caste name of the complainant and told her that

nobody else would marry her. At that juncture, other person

viz., Rahid started the scooter and Sameer forcefully kidnapped

the granddaughter of the complainant.

5. Based on the complaint, police have registered the

case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

6. Request made by the appellant for grant of bail was

turned down by the learned Special Judge and thereafter

appellant is before this Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:3043

7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the

grounds urged in the appeal contended that now that the charge

sheet is filed and the victim is brought back to the complainant

and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing

the accused in judicial custody and sought for grant of bail.

8. Per contra, counsel for second

respondent/complainant submits that he has no objection to

allow the bail application based on the instructions given by the

second respondent.

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader however

opposes that if the accused is let on bail, there would be

hindrance to the true course of justice and sought for dismissal

of the appeal.

10. Having heard the parties in detail, taking note of

the gravity of the offence that has been leveled against the

accused and taking note of the fact that second respondent has

no objection to grant the bail, continuation of the accused in

judicial custody is no longer warranted.

11. Further, the apprehensions expressed by the

prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent

conditions.

       (ii)       Appellant/accused is directed to be enlarged on

                  bail   on   executing     a    bond   in   a   sum    of