Karnataka High Court
Sri Sadashivamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26843
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI SADASHIVAMURTHY
S/O LATE THIPPURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/O. UDDANURU VILLAGE,
HANUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 105
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BALARAJ V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY S.H.O. OF HANUR POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560 001
signed by
SWAPNA V
Location: 2. SRI. SURESH
High Court of
Karnataka S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O. UDDANURU VILLAGE,
HANUR TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
R2 - SD)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED IN
CRIME NO.234/2025 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26843
CRL.A No. 1318 of 2025
HC-KAR
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA AND FURTHER BE PLEASED
TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL DIRECTING
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHAMARAJANAGARA TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL CRIME NO.120/2025
OF HANURU POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT U/S
105, 3(5) OF BNS, 135 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT (AMEND) 2003
AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ACT 2015.
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused No.1 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for short) in
the event of their arrest in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur Police
Station, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chamarajanagara, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 105, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS),
Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003 and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, on the basis of the first
information lodged by informant - Suresha.
NC: 2025:KHC:26843
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri.Balaraj V.R., learned Counsel for the
appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the
respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellants are entitled for
grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. Accused No.1 has approached the Court seeking
anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. It is the
contention of the prosecution that two cattle belonging to the
informant were found missing since 04.06.2025. Later they
were found dead due to electrocution in the land belonging to
accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that accused No.1 and 2 have
taken illegal electricity connection to their land and have
committed the offence as stated above.
NC: 2025:KHC:26843
HC-KAR
5. It is pertinent to note that, there is not even a
whisper about the caste of the complainant or the accused or
that the accused have committed any offence under the SC/ST
POA Act. But somehow, the Investigating Officer invoked the
provisions of special enactment without any basis. The
Investigating Officer, who registered the FIR is answerable for
invoking the provisions of special enactment without application
of mind.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the
record of rights pertaining to the land in question. As per this
document, accused No.2 along with two others was the owner
of the land, where it is stated that the accused have taken
electricity connection illegally. Prima-facie, accused No.1 is not
the owner of land in question. Admittedly, accused No.2 the
son of the present appellant is the owner of the land in
question along with two others. No prima facie materials are
produced to show involvement of the present appellant.
7. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the
appellant is required for interrogation or that he is having any
NC: 2025:KHC:26843
HC-KAR
criminal antecedent. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the
appellants may be granted anticipatory bail subject to
conditions which will take care of the interest of the prosecution
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur Police
Station.
The appellant is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall
enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-
a. The appellant shall furnish the bond in a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
b. The appellant shall not commit similar
offences;
c. The appellant shall appear before the
Investigating Officer or the court as and when
required; and
NC: 2025:KHC:26843
HC-KAR
d. The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the
Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the
addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by
them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed
to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
