Sri N Venkategowda vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 1613 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1613 Kant
Judgement Date : 24 July, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Sri N Venkategowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2025

                                                   -1-
                                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:28239
                                                               CRL.A No. 1478 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                 BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

                   BETWEEN:
                   SRI. N. VENKATEGOWDA
                   S/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA,
                   AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                   R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR,
                   HANURU TOWN, HANUR - 571439
                   CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK,
                   CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
                                                                              ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. S.P. RAMESHA, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   BY M.M. HILLS POLICE STATION,
                   HANURU TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA
                   DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE
                   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
by SWAPNA V
                   BENGALURU - 560 001
Location: High
Court of                                                                 ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka          (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

                          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 BY
                   THE      PRINCIPAL       DISTRICT     AND        SESSIONS        JUDGE,
                   CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CRL.MISC NO.222/2025 AND ENLARGE THE
                   APPELLANT    ON   BAIL   IN   THE   EVENT   OF    ARREST    IN   CRIME
                   NO.46/2025, DATED 27.05.2025 REGISTERED BY THE MM HILLS
                   POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 351(2) AND 352 OF BNS
                   2023 AND ALSO U/S 3(1)(R)(S) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTS AND
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:28239
                                             CRL.A No. 1478 of 2025


HC-KAR



SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989
(AMENDED ACT, 2015) AND THE SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE      PRINCIPAL      DISTRICT       AND      SESSIONS          JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA.

      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 is before this Court seeking grant

of bail under Section 14-(A)(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 his arrest in Crime No.46/2025 of M.M.Hills Police

Station, before the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Chamarajanagara, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 351(2), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,

on the basis of the first information lodged by informant -Sri.

Mahesha.A.

2. Heard Sri. S.P.Ramesha, learned Counsel for the

appellant and Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court

NC: 2025:KHC:28239

HC-KAR

Government Pleader 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 appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the

following:

REASONS

4. It is the contention of the prosecution that the

informant lodged the first information on 27.05.2025 at 01.30

p.m., alleging that on 26.05.2005, the appellant had published

an article in his newspaper defaming him. In that regard, the

informant had previously lodged the first information on

26.05.2025. On 27.05.2025 at 11.00 a.m., when the informant

was proceeding near the well, in the police station road, the

appellant met him, abused him in the filthy language referring

to his caste with an intention to humiliate him within the public

NC: 2025:KHC:28239

HC-KAR

eye. The accused is said to have criminally intimidated the

informant, who belongs to scheduled caste. Therefore, the

informant requested the police to provide him with proper

security.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the

appellant is a journalist by profession. The photo that was

uploaded in the social media by the informant was published in

the newspaper. There was no intention either to defame, or to

humiliate him. Even though the first information was filed on

26.05.2005, at the first instance, the police appears to have

not taken any action in that regard as there was no substance

in the same. Therefore, the informant thought of filing the

present complaint on 27.05.2025, at 1.30 p.m., making false

and baseless allegations.

6. Learned counsel further contended that, the

appellant was in his town i.e. Hanuru village, which was more

than 50 kms. away from the scene of occurrence on the date

and time of the alleged incident. He has collected the CCTV

camera footage, and he is ready to produce the same before

the Investigating Officer. Regarding the criminal antecedents of

the appellant, he submits that even though two criminal cases

NC: 2025:KHC:28239

HC-KAR

were registered against the appellant, in one such case 'B'

report came to be filed by the police, and in the second case,

he was acquitted by the Trial Court. Except the present FIR,

there are no other criminal cases registered against him.

7. Learned counsel submits that, the appellant is

ready to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed

by this Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the

appellant may be granted anticipatory bail, subject to

conditions, which will take care of the interest of the

prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the

witnesses.

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 Cr.No.46/2025 of M.M.Hills Police Station.

The appellant is directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of

NC: 2025:KHC:28239

HC-KAR

this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall

enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

a. The appellant shall furnish the bonds 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 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.