Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20633
CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMESH
S/O. MUNISAMBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SMT. INDRAMMA
W/O. RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3. SRI. DEVAMMA
S/O. MUNISAMBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A. NO.1
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
Digitally signed RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
by NANDINI B ...APPELLANTS
G (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIHALLI POLICE STATION
KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 119
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O. MUTHURAJU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20633
CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SMT. SHASIKALA
W/O. VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. SMT. BAIRAMMA
W/O. LATE. KRISHNAYYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
5. SMT. SHIVARATHNAMMA
W/O. LATE. VIJI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
6. SRI. SRINIVASA
S/O. LATE. MUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT. ALANATHA VILLAGE
KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 119
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1,
R2 TO 6 - SD)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PASSED IN CASE BEARING
CRL.MISC.NO.322/2025, FILED BY THE APPELLANTS, AND BE
PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THE KODIHALLI
POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, TO
RELEASE THE APPELLANTS, IN THE EVENT OF THE ARREST OF THE
APPELLANTS, IN CRIME NO.39/2025, REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1),
75, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND UNDER
SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(W), 3(S)(VA) OF SC/ST(POA)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, BY
GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20633
CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants -accused Nos.1 to 3 are 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 Act' for short) in
the event of their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodihalli
Police Station, pending before the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 75, 329(3), 352,
351(2), 3(5) of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, on the basis
of the first information lodged by informant - Shivarathna.
2. Heard Sri V B Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the
appellants and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for
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:
NC: 2025:KHC:20633
HC-KAR
"Whether the appellants are 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. On the basis of first information lodged by
respondent No.5, Crime No.39 of 2025 came to be registered
for the above said offences against accused Nos.1 to 3, who are
the appellants herein. It is the contention of the appellants
that appellant No.2 had filed a criminal case against the
respondents alleging commission of similar offences, which was
registered in Crime No.38 of 2025. According to the
appellants, as a counter blast, the present complaint came to
be filed making similar allegations and also invoking the
provisions of special enactment only to see that the appellants
are apprehended and detained in custody.
5. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that the respondents are already granted
anticipatory bail in Crime No.38 of 2025. When similar
NC: 2025:KHC:20633
HC-KAR
allegations are made in the case and counter case and in the
case that was registered at the first instance, the respondents
are already granted anticipatory bail, I do not find any reason
to reject the prayer made by the appellants.
6. It is not the contention of learned Additional SPP
that the appellants are required for custodial interrogation. The
appellants are not having any criminal antecedents. 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 as well as interest of the
complainant and the witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodihalli Police
Station, pending before the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.
NC: 2025:KHC:20633
HC-KAR
The appellants are directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer
shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-
a. The appellants shall furnish the bonds in a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only) each with two sureties each for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer;
b. The appellants shall not commit similar
offences;
c. The appellants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer or the court as and when
required; and
d. The appellants shall not threaten or tamper
the prosecution witnesses.
On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, 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
*bgn/-
CT:VS
