Karnataka High Court
Ranjith G R vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22243
CRL.A No. 951 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
RANJITH G.R.,
S/O. LATE RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT: OMKAR EXTENSION,
KUSHAL NAGAR, KODAGU
DISTRICT - 571 234
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LETHIF .B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN POLICE
STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT
Digitally BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
signed by
SWAPNA V 2. VIDHYA G,
Location: D/O GANGADHAR K.G,
High Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1683, K BLOCK,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR,
MYSURU CITY - 570 022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. SUMANTH ULLOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.138/2025 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22243
CRL.A No. 951 of 2025
HC-KAR
SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
69, 115(2), 351(2), 352 OF BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S),
3(1)(W), 3(2)(W) OF SC AND THE ST (POA) ACT, 1989 OF
KUSHALNAGARA TOWN POLICE, KODAGU DISTRICT AND
CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT IN THE EVENT OF ARREST
IN CR.NO.19/2025 OF KUSHALANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION,
KODAGU DISTRICT BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
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 being accused No.1 is 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 his arrest in Crime No.19/2025 of
Kushalnagar Town Police Station, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, on the
basis of the first information lodged by informant-Vidya G.
2. Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:22243
HC-KAR
No.1-State and Sri. Sumanth Ullod, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. 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 anticipatory 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. The appellant is arrayed as accused No.1. It is
alleged that he had promised to marry the informant and
committed sexual assault. The FIR came to be registered on
16.03.2025 for the offence that was committed from
01.01.2017 till 06.03.2025. It is the contention of the appellant
that, initially a similar complaint was filed against accused
Nos.1 to 3 on 11.11.2024 and thereafter, the same was
withdrawn unconditionally on 04.03.2025 as per the
Endorsement issued by A.S.I of Somwarpet Sub-Division. It is
stated that even after withdrawal of the earlier complaint, the
NC: 2025:KHC:22243
HC-KAR
victim had believed the words of the accused, and had gone
with him and, as such the said offence was again committed on
06.03.2025 which can not be believed. It is to be noticed that,
the victim is now aged 25 years, she is working as a Assistant
Professor in the college whereas the accused is working as
Police Constable.
5. Even though the provisions of special enactment
are invoked and the learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the appellant is not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail, on going through the first information, it is
found that the allegations for committing the offence under
Section SC/ST Act, is only against accused Nos.2 and 3, who
are already granted anticipatory bail. It is not the contention of
the prosecution that the appellant is required for custodial
interrogation. 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.
6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:22243
HC-KAR
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.19/2025 of Kushalnagar Town
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 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.
NC: 2025:KHC:22243
HC-KAR
On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the
Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the
address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him.
On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to
accept the sureties within a reasonable time.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
