Karnataka High Court
Sri Shiju vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21702
CRL.A No. 895 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIJU,
S/O MANI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.12, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST G CROSS, 20TH MAIN
ROAD, BTM LAYOUT,
1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 76
2. SRI. ISLAMUDDEEN
S/O ABDUL RAZAK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.520, 1ST FLOOR,
10TH CROSS, 28TH MAIN
ROAD, BTM LAYOUT,
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 76
3. SMT. MINA MOKTAN
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V D/O CHANDRA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
Court of R/AT NO.18, 16TH MAIN,
Karnataka
BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 76
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VINCENT P.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21702
CRL.A No. 895 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. H.K. RAVIKUMAR
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 IN
CRL.MISC.11770/2024 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT LXX ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. B) ENLARGE THE
APPELLANTS ON BAIL ON CC.NO.2428/2024 OF PUTTENALLI POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 3, 4,
5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT AND SECTION
3(1)(R)(W) OF SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).
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 appellants being accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this
Court seeking grant of anticipatory 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.16/2024 of
Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 of Immoral Traffic
NC: 2025:KHC:21702
HC-KAR
Prevention Act, 1956 (for short, 'the ITP Act') and under
Section 3(1)(r)and (w) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the
first information lodged by informant-H.K.Ravikumar.
2. Heard Sri Vincent P.J., learned Counsel for the
appellants and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P 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:
"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. Initially, the FIR came to be registered against
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections
3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act. It is stated that the appellants were
apprehended and released on bail during crime stage. However,
the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable
NC: 2025:KHC:21702
HC-KAR
under Sections 3, 4, 5 of ITP Act and also under Section 3(1)(r)
and (w) of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the appellants are having
apprehension of being arrested and they have approached this
Court.
5. Admittedly, the appellants were already granted
bail by the Trial Court and there are no allegations that they
have misused the liberty granted in their favour. It is only at
the time of filing the charge sheet, the Provisions of SC/ST Act
was invoked. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the
appellants are required for further investigation. The disposal
of the matter after full-fledged trial will take long period of time
and I do not find any reason to reject the prayer made by the
appellants. 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.
6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:21702
HC-KAR
The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.16/2024 of Puttenahalli Police
Station, Bengaluru.
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21702
HC-KAR
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
MKM
