Karnataka High Court

Pradeep vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                         -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:3948
                                               CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                     BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2434 OF 2024
            BETWEEN:

                  PRADEEP
                  S/O. SHRIDHAR,
                  AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                  RESIDING AT NO.202, MANITO MANSION,
                  NO.10, 2ND CROSS,
                  DINNURRU MAIN ROAD,
                  R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.
                                                           ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
            AND:


            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                  BY HIGH GROUND P.S.,
                  REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                  HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
Digitally         BANGALORE - 560 001.
signed by
MALATESH    2.    ANAND
KC                S/O. SONNAPPA,
Location:         AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF          RESIDING AT NO. 401,
KARNATAKA         COMMERCE HOUSE,
                  CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
                  BENGALURU - 560 052.
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
            (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R-1;
            R-2 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED)

                                         ***
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:3948
                                      CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU
(CCH-71)    IN   CRL.MISC.NO.9515/2024         AND   TO   GRANT
ANTICIPATORY     BAIL    TO   APPELLANT   BY    DIRECTING   THE
RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT
OF HIS ARREST IN SPL.C.C.NO.664/2024 ARISING OUT OF
CRIME NO.229/2023 OF HIGH GROUNDS POLICE FOR AN
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF
IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN THE ABOVE CASE.

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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Though this matter is posted for Admission, with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is

taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Sri. Afroz Pasha, learned counsel for

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State. The second respondent is served

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

with the notice of the appeal, but has remained absent

and un-represented.

3. The present appeal is filed by the appellant,

seeking anticipatory bail and questioning the validity of the

rejection of such a request by the learned LXX Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru

(CCH-71), in Crl.Misc.No.9515/2024, on 30.10.2024.

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the appeal are as under:

4.1. The complainant - Anand is said to be working

in the Office of one Komal Kumar. The appellant being the

son of the first accused, said to have entered the Office of

Komal Kumar on 02.07.2023 and picked up the quarrel

and assaulted Komal Kumar. When the complainant tried

to pacify the same, they also assaulted said Anand also.

In that regard, he filed a complaint with the High Grounds

Police Station, stating that the appellant and his mother

are to be secured to the Police Station and to be advised

not to indulge in such activities in future.

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

4.2. Based on such complaint, Police registered a

non-cognizible offence and issued notice to the

complainant to appear before the Police Station for the

purpose of enquiry. The complainant is said to have

ignored the said notice issued by the High Grounds Police

Station and therefore, the Police closed the case.

4.3. Later on, again, the complainant approached

the Police on 06.10.2023 and lodged one more complaint,

reiterating the incident that has occurred on 02.07.2023,

with some more allegations stating that, when he tried to

pacify the quarrel, wherein the appellant and his mother

had assaulted one Sri.Komal Kumar, who is the employer

of the complainant, the present appellant and his mother

abused the complainant, taking out his caste name and

then tried to assault him also.

4.4. Based on the said complaint lodged on

06.10.2023, the High Grounds Police registered a case in

Crime No.229/2023 for the offences punishable under

Sections 504, 506, 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) and

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "SC/ST (POA) Act") read with Section 34 of

IPC. Thereafter, the Police investigated the matter and

filed the charge sheet showing the accused Nos.1 and 2 as

the absconding accused.

5. Post charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took

cognizance and issued Non-bailable Warrants to the

appellant and his mother. The first accused being the

mother of the appellant was arrested and produced before

the Special Judge, who has been now granted the bail. But

anticipatory bail request of appellant is rejected. But

anticipatory bail request of appellant is rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the

grounds urged in the appeal, vehemently contended that,

in respect of the incident that occurred on 02.07.2023,

there are two complaints which is impermissible in law and

in the second complaint, in order to aggravate the

situation, the second respondent (complainant) has falsely

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

narrated that the appellant and his mother have taken out

his caste name and abused him.

6.1. He further pointed out that, if that were to be

so, there was no impediment for the second respondent to

have included those allegations in the first complaint itself

which came to be lodged soon after the incident on

02.07.2023.

7. The learned counsel also pointed out that as per

the first complaint, the incident is said to have occurred in

the afternoon and in the said complaint, there is no time

mentioned and the said complaint itself came to be lodged

at about 3:15 p.m., only with an intention to lodge the

second complaint, in the case on hand, a second

complaint which is registered on 06.10.2023, the time is

shown as 8:30 p.m.

8. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that

the second complaint is a motivated complaint only with

an intention to harass the appellant and his mother and

sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

9. He further pointed out that three months' delay

in lodging the complaint is not even explained in the FIR

properly and delay shown in column No.3(c) for the

delayed complaint is that the complainant, after discussing

it with his family members, had lodged the complaint

three months later.

10. He further pointed out that, the very fact that

the delayed complaint has been lodged with the

allegations of abusing the complainant by taking out his

caste name, shows the hollowness in the complaint

averments which would not deter this Court from granting

the anticipatory bail, in view of the bar under Section 18 of

the SC/ST(POA) Act and thus order for grant of

anticipatory bail.

11. Per contra, Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State

supports the impugned order and contends that, prima

facie material in the form of complaint itself would be

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

sufficient enough to invoke the bar under Section 18 of the

SC/ST(POA) Act and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

12. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the

material on record, meticulously. Admittedly, as per the

earlier non-cognizable report recorded by the very same

Police, on 02.07.2023, there was no allegation of taking

out the caste name and abusing the complainant. On

06.10.2023, again, a complaint came to be lodged in

respect of the very same incident, of course, with a

modified time.

13. In the first complaint, there is no allegation that

because of the assault made by the appellant and his

mother, the complainant had lost his consciousness. In

fact, he visited the Police Station at about 3:25 p.m. and

lodged a written complaint. Had it been so, the theory

that he was hospitalised and he lost his consciousness and

therefore he could not lodge the complaint on the very

same day, invoking the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and

later on, he discussed with his family members and lodged

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

the complaint against the appellant and his mother on

06.10.2023, prima facie, cannot be countenanced in law.

Long delay of three months is not properly explained,

which is a matter which would be of sufficient significance

while entertaining the request of the appellant.

14. Even the other allegations made in the

complaint are simple in nature and if none else were

present, when the complainant and his boss, who are said

to have been assaulted by the appellant and his mother,

and lost his consciousness, the so-called abuse would also

be not in public view.

15. Anyway, the said matter is to be adjudicated

before the Trial Court after proper trial. Expressing any

further opinion, at this stage, would definitely hamper the

rights of the parties in the pending trial. Thus, desisting

from holding a mini-trial that the material on record is

considered for the purpose of invoking bar under Section

18 of the SC/ST(POA)Act, this Court is convinced that the

bar under Section 18 would not be applicable in the facts

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3948

and circumstances of the case, more so, having regard to

the bald complaint and in the first complaint there is no

mention of abusive words so as to attract Section 3(1)(r)

and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The other

apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by

imposing suitable conditions. Grant of regular bail to the

mother of the appellant is a relevant factor while

considering the request of the appellant.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed:

ii) The appellant is directed to join the

investigation by appearing before the

Investigating Officer on 10.02.2025 at

10:00 a.m.

iii) The Investigating officer is at liberty to

take him into custody and complete the exterior

investigation, if any, on the same day before 5:00

p.m. and thereafter enlarge the appellant on bail