Karnataka High Court
Dilip Kumar B H vs State Of Karnataka By on 27 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22730
CRL.A No. 1219 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1219 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
DILIP KUMAR B.H.
S/O BYRESHWARA M.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14/1,
13TH CROSS, RT STREET, BVK
LYENGAR ROAD, CHIKKAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHU E.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE
STATION REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PERSECUTOR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G 2. KIRAN S
Location: High
Court of S/O SANNAPPA,
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAGARAJANNA VATARA,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
VARAJAHALLI, THALAGHATTAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 109.
...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 17.05.2025 PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22730
CRL.A No. 1219 of 2025
HC-KAR
CRL.MISC.NO.789/2025 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. DIST AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU
AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CR.NO.139/2025 FOR THE O/P/U/S 137(2), 127(2),, 109, 133,
310(2), 111(2) R/W 190 OF BNS AND U/S 7 R/W 27 OF THE INDIAN
ARMS ACT AND U/S 3(2)(V) SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 OF
TALAGATTAPURA POLICE STATION.
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused No.2 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 Act' for short) in Crime
No.139/2025 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 109,
133, 310 (2), 111(2) R/w Section 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS), Section 7 R/w 27 of the Indian
Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act on the basis
of the first information lodged by informant-Kiran.S.
NC: 2025:KHC:22730
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. Madhu E.K., learned Counsel for the
appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP 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 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 being accused No.2 is said to have
committed the offence punishable under Sections 137(2),
127(2), 109, 133, 310 (2), 111(2) R/w Section 190 of BNS,
Section 7 R/w 27 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of
'the SC/ST Act'. The informant filed the first information making
specific allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 and others. It
is stated that the present appellant had called the victim to the
spot and assaulted him on his legs. The accused have
withdrawn an amount of Rs.26,000/- from the account of the
NC: 2025:KHC:22730
HC-KAR
complainant. It is stated that there was no recovery at the
instance of the present appellant. The informant states in the
first information that he had not taken any treatment.
5. The appellant was apprehended on 16.04.2025 and
since then he is in judicial custody. It is not the contention of
the prosecution that the appellant is required for further
investigation.
6. Learned ASPP submits that the appellant is having
criminal antecedent, as he has involved in Cr.No.86/2022 of
Cubbon Park police station. The same is admitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant. However, he states that he
has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the
appellant undertakes not to involve in any other criminal cases.
Taking into consideration, such submissions, I am of the
opinion that the appellant who is not required to be detained in
custody for any purpose may be enlarged on bail subject to
conditions, which will take care of the interest of the
prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the
witnesses.
NC: 2025:KHC:22730
HC-KAR
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant/accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on
bail in Crime No.139/2025 of Thalagattapura Police Station, on
obtaining 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 jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The appellant shall not commit similar
offences.
b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The appellant shall appear before the Court
as and when required.
If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as
stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the
Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial
Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify
NC: 2025:KHC:22730
HC-KAR
the correctness of the address and authenticity of the
documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a
report may be called for in that regard, which is to be
submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial
Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for
the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
CT:VS
