Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No. 2081 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2081 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.114/2,
R R TEMPLE ROAD,
KATHRIGUPPE,
BENGALURU-560085.
2.
SRI. RAM MOHAN RAJU
S/O CHANGAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/3,
ROYAL LAKEFRONT RESIDENCY,
PHASE-3, J. P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560078.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANEKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
-2-
CRL.A No. 2081 of 2025
2. SRI. T. PILLAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HALDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. P. RUDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R2. )
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2025 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1524/2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU (ANNXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 31.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
In this appeal appellant is challenging the order dated 19th
September, 2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.1524 of 2025 by
the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short "the trial Court").
2. Facts in brief are that Anekal Police laid charge
sheet against accused 1 and 2 and others for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 338, 34092),
318(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of Indian
Penal Code and submitted First Information Report to the Court.
Accused 1 and 2, the appellants herein, have filed application
under Section 482 of BNSS-2023 seeking anticipatory bail.
Same came to be rejected by the impugned order. Being
aggrieved by the order of rejection of anticipatory bail, the
appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. Respondent No.2 appeared before the court through
Counsel and filed statement of objections contending that the
application filed by the appellant is not maintainable either in
law or on facts. It is stated that on 17th March, 2021,
registered General Power of Attorney was said to have been
executed by respondent No.2 and family members in favour of
appellant No.1. Upon coming to know that the appellant No.1 is
misusing the GPA, the respondent No.2 issued legal notice
dated 06th June 2022 to the appellant No.1 for cancellation of
GPA dated 17th March, 2021 and directed the appellant No.1 not
to do any further transaction through the said GPA. The second
respondent issued public notice through "Hosa Diganta"
Kannada Daily, regarding cancellation of GPA dated 17th March,
2021. On 15th February, 2022, the second respondent and his
family members cancelled the GPA dated 17th March, 2021
through registered cancellation of GPA. On 8th April, 2022,
respondent No.2 lodged complaint before the respondent No.1-
Police station against appellants regarding forgery, cheating and
misusing of the said GPA. The said case was registered in
Crime No.92 of 2005. After obtaining bail from the court for
crime registered in Crime No.92 of 2025, again, the appellant
No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of applicant No.2
by fabricating the documents pertaining to property belonging
to respondent No.2 and his family members saying that
appellant No.1 is the GPA holder. The respondent No.2 on 7th
July, 2025 when he an his friends Suresh and Muniraju were at
his land, appellants 1 and 2 arrived with their associates and
the appellants, with their friends, allegedly abused respondent
No.2 in filthy language and humiliated by taking his caste
name. The accused also allegedly threatened to beat him and
warned him that they know how to deal with his family
members one by one. The appellants alleged warned to kill him
and his family mebmers and bury them on the spot, if he
returned to the land. It is further stated that respondent No.2
and his family owns eight acres of land in Bagganadoddi village
which was granted to his father on 11th October, 1966 and is
protected under Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act.
The family belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste, had
appointed appellant No.1 as a GPA holder to manager revenue
and court related matters. However, due to business
disagreements, the family revoked the GPA on 15th March,
2023. Despite that the appellant No.1 allegedly created a
fraudulent agreement with appellant No.2 on 23rd August, 2024.
Hence, the 2nd respondent had filed complaint on 08th April,
2025. It is further stated that the appellants have created
documents such as Agreement of sale dated 23rd August, 2024
and sale deed dated 04th July, 2025 and thereby unlawfully
transferred the land of respondent No.2 and interfering with the
rights of respondent No.2 and his family members in violation of
PTCL Act. The respondent No.2 has lodged complaint against
appellants 1 and 2 in Crime No.92 of 2025 with Anekal Police
alleging that the respondent No2. and has family members had
executed GPA dated 17th March, 2021 in favour of appellant
No.1 and subsequently cancelled the same but the appellants
have created agreement of sale and other documents on behalf
of family Members of respondent No.2 including Yellappa T.,
Ramya and Venkatesh through the said three persons have
already expired. There is serious threat to the life of the victim
and her family members and all these grounds it is sought to
allow the appeal. Along with statement of objections,
respondent No.2 has produced copy of General Power of
Attorney dated 17th March, 2021, copy of notice dated 6th June,
2022, copy of documents of schedule property and copy of
notice dated Nil of July of 2022 and another Notice dated nil of
July, 2022.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that none of the ingredients of the
alleged offences have made out against the appellants. The
respondent No.2 is trying to give criminal colour to what would
amount to a civil dispute. The learned counsel would submit
that the complaint shows that the respondent No.2 and his
family members have executed Registered General Power of
Attorney in favour of the appellant No.1 in respect of the
schedule property and the appellant No.1 has sold the said
property to appellant No.2. The respondent No.2 is now trying
to take the property back from the appellants on the ground
that the GPA and agreements entered into are cancelled. Only
in order to pressurize and harass the appellants, the respondent
No.2 has initiated the criminal proceedings against the
appellants. It is also submitted that the complaint lodged by
the respondent No.2, is malafide and vexatious. It is submitted
that the appellants are law-abiding citizens and have no
criminal antecedents. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow
the appeal.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
On the basis of the complaint filed by T. Pillappa, Anekal Police
registered case in Crime No.232 of 2025 against accused 1 to 3
for the offence punishable under Sections 336(2), 338, 349(2),
318(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of BNS-
2023 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submitted First Information Report to
the Court. The present appellants filed application under section
482 of BNSS-2023 seeking for grant of anticipatory bail, which
came to be rejected by order dated 19th September 2025.
It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No.2 and
his family owns 8 acres of land in Bagganadoddi Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore (Rural) District in old Sy. No.95
and new Sy.No.116 measuring four acres and in old Sy.No.95,
new Sy.No.117, measuring four acres. On 17th March, 2021,
respondent No.2 and his family members executed registered
General Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No.1 interalia,
authorising the appellant No.1 to sell the property. Respondent
No.2 and his family members have received some of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the grant of such authority. Respondent No.2,
along with his family members executed a registered agreement
for sale, agreeing to sell the said property in favour of appellant
No.1 or his nominee for a total sale consideration of
Rs.80,00,000/- of which the appellant No.1 has paid an advance
sale consideration of Rs,.22,00,000/-. In the interregnum,
three family members of respondent No.2 passed away and the
respondent No.2 and his family members executed and got
unilateral cancellation of the registered GPA dated 17th March,
2021. On 23rd August 2024, appellant No.1 in his capacity as
general power of attorney holder for the respondent No.2 and
his family members, executed a registered agreement of sale,
agreeing to sell the said property in favour of the appellant
No.2. On 8th April, 2025, Anekal Police registered case in Crime
No.92 of 2025 on the basis of complaint filed by the
complainant against appellants 1 and 2 alleging that the
complainant had purportedly committed crimes of forgery and
cheating by entering into agreement of sale in August 2024,
after the purported cancellation of the GPA on the death of
some of the family members. The FIR registered in respect of
offence under sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 351(2) and
351(3) of BNS 2023. On 24th June, 2025, order was passed by
the court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal
granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. On 4th July 2025,
registered sale lead was executed by appellant No.1 in his
capacity as GPA holder for respondent No.2, and his family
members, conveying the said property in favour of appellant
No.2. On 31st July, 2025, the second complaint came to be filed
by respondent No.2 on the same allegations stating that on 7th
July 2025, the appellants along with certain other persons,
came to the said property and abused him. A second FIR in
Crime No.232 of 2025 came to be registered for the same
offences as in the first FIR, by including offences under sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 2015.
On 05th August 2025, respondent No.2 and his family members
filed civil suit in OS No.1072 of 2025, in the Court of Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Anekal against the applicants seeking
declaration of title to the said property and for cancellation of
registered GPA, agreement of sale and the sale deed. On 6th
August, 2025, the Civil Court granted an ex-parte ad interim
order restraining alienating of property. On 7th August, 2025 the
appellant filed Criminal Misc.No.1524 of 2025, under section
482 of BNS-2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail contending
that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the appellants
have neither committed any forgery nor have cheated
respondent No.2. The registered GPA executed by respondent
No.2 and his family members is one coupled with interest,
therefore irrevocable, and cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The
- 10 -
death of some of the grantors did not result in a termination of
general power of attorney, even interest of deceased grantors.
The second complaint is not justified as it is a repetition of
earlier allegations in respect of which appellants have already
been granted anticipatory bail. On 19th September, 2025,
though the Sessions court has held that no offence is made out
under section 3(1)(4) or 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, but has
declined grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants on the
ground that they may interfere with the said property. On all
these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
To substantiate his arguments, the learned Counsel has relied
on the following decisions:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA AND OTHERS v. SRI CS
RAGHAVAN NAIR AND OTHERS rendered in RFA
No.243 of 2008 and connected appeal decided on
28th February 2023;
2. SRI CHINNAPPA BY HIS LRs v. SMT.
SHARADAMMA, rendered in RFA NO.744 Of 2016
and connected appeal decided on 28TH MAY
2024;
3. M/S. JADE GARDEN PLOT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION v. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI AND
OTHERS in CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.88 OF
2024 decided on 25TH OCTOBER 2024.;
- 11 -
4. P SESHAREDDY REP. BY LR-CUM-IRREVOCABLE
GPA HOLDER AND ASSIGNEE KOTAMREDDY
KODANDARAMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS in SLP Nos.6354-6356 OF 2020 decided
on 9TH NOVEMBER 2022;
5. M S ANANTHAMURTHY AND ANOTHER v. J
MANJULA ETC reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC
448;
6. SMT. MADHUMATI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in
WRIT PETITION No.103965 OF 2023, decided on
9TH OCTOBER 2023.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further
submit that where prosecution is unable to demonstrate the
need for custodial interrogation and the allegations are primarily
based on the documents, anticipatory bail ought to be granted.
To substantiate this submission, he would reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of PRADIP N
SHARMA v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 457.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent-State, would reiterate the averments made
in the statement of objections and sought for dismissal of
appeal.
- 12 -
8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following point would arise for my consideration:
"Whether appellants have made out a ground
to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
trial Court?"
9. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. On the basis of complaint filed by T. Pillappa, Anekal
Police registered Case in Crime No.232 of 2025 for offences
punishable 336(2), 338, 349(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3)
read with Section 3(5) of BNS-2023 and sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submitted FIR
to the court on the same day.
10. Before appreciation of materials placed before this
court, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of sections
3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA), 1989. The
same read thus:
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.--3 [(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,--
3(1)(a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx
- 13 -
3(1)(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned
by, or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by
any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or gets such land
transferred;
3(1)(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or
interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including
forest rights, over any land or premises or water or
irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the
produce therefrom.
3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
3(1)(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;
Explanation to clause 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) includes:
"Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (f) and this
clause, the expression "wrongfully" includes--
(A) against the person's will;
(B) without the person's consent;
(C) with the person's consent, where such consent has
been obtained by putting the person, or any other person
in whom the person is interested in fear of death or of
hurt; or
(D) fabricating records of such land;"
- 14 -
11. It is also relevant to mention year as to provisions
of section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The same reads thus:
"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to
persons committing an offence under the Act.--
Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation
to any case involving the arrest of any person on an
accusation of having committed an offence under this
Act."
12. The substance of FIR in Crime No.92 of 2025, reads
as under:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 08/04/2025 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 15-00 UÀAmÉUÉ D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ºÁ¯ÉãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ²æà ¦¼Àî¥Àà ©£ï
wªÀÄägÁAiÀÄ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ ¦AiÀÄðzÀÄ
¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ zÀÆjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄä
PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀévÁÛzÀ CAzÀgÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ,
PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, §UÀ£ÀzÉÆrØ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.96 ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀªÉð
£ÀA.116 gÀ°è 4 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ rmÉÆà UÁæªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.95, ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀªÉð
£ÀA.117 gÀ°è «¹ÛÃtð 4 JPÀgÉ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ನಮ ಕುಟುಂಬPÉÌ ಸ ಾ ರ ಂದ
ಮಂಜೂರು ಆ ರುವಂತಹ ಸ ಾ ದು ಮತು, ಅ ೇ ೕ !ಾ"ೇ ಈ
$ೕಲ&ಂಡ ಸ ನ() ನಮ ಸ ಂತ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°è ಅನುಭ+, ೊಂಡು
ಬರು ರು ೇ"ೆ. -ೕ ರು"ಾಗ !ಾನು ಮತು ನಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ನಮ/ೆ
ಕಂ ಾಯದ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ಸಂಬಂ ,ದಂ ೆ ಸ 1ಾದ 2ಾನ ಇಲ) ೇ
ಇರುವ4ದ ಂದ ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾರಣಗ7ಂದ !ಾವ4 ಈ -ಂ ೆ ನಮ ಸ ತನು8
!ೋ9 ೊಳ;<ವ ಸಲು"ಾ ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾರಣಗ7/ಾ ಚಂದ>?ೇಖರ.,
ಎಂಬುವವ /ೆ !ೋಂ ಾCತ G.P.A ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8
Eಾ9 ೊFGರು ೇ"ೆ, -ೕ ರು"ಾಗ ಸದ ೕ ಚಂದ>?ೇಖರ., ನಮ/ೆ Hೕಸ
ಮತು ವಂಚ!ೆಯನು8 Eಾಡಲು ಪ>ಯತ8 ಪJಾGಗ !ಾವ4 ಸದ ೕ G.P.A
ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8 ವKಾ Eಾಡುವ ಸಲು"ಾ ಳ;ವ7 ೆ
- 15 -
!ೋFೕL ಅನು8 ಮತು ಅ ೇ ೕ ನಪ > ೆಯ°è ¥ÀæPÀluÉ Eಾಡುವ4ದರ
ಮೂಲಕ ಸದ ೕ ಈ $ೕಲ&ಂಡ G.P.A ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8
!ಾಂಕ 15/02/2023 ರಂದು ಆ!ೇಕM ನ
G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÁuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå ANK-4-
00637-2022-23, CD.No.ANKD1497 gÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj G.P.A
ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8 ವKಾ Eಾ9ದು ಮತು ಅ ೇ ೕ ಸದ ೕ
ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8 ಬಳ, 1ಾವ4 ೇ +ಧ"ಾದ ವPವQಾರಗಳನು8
EಾಡRಾರ ೆಂದು ಸೂS,ದರೂ ಸಹ ಮತು ಅ ೇ ೕ ಸದ ೕ ಾಖDೆಗಳ;
ಈ/ಾಗDೇ ವKಾ"ಾ ದರೂ ಸಹ ಚಂದ>?ೇಖರ., ಮತು 5ಾಮ HೕಹT
5ಾಜು.,.ಆU ರವರು ಅ RೆDೆಯ ಉಪ!ೋಂ ಾWಾX ಾ ಯವರ Kೊ ೆ
?ಾYೕDಾ ನಮ/ೆ Hೕಸ ಮತು ವಂಚ!ೆಯನು8 Eಾಡುವ ಸಲು"ಾ
ಸದ ೕ G.P.A ಮತು ಇತ5ೇ ಾಖDೆಗಳ; ವKಾ"ಾ ದರೂ ಸಹ ಮತು
ಅ ೇ ೕ ನಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವ5ಾದ gÀªÀÄå ಯಲ)ಪZ.F ಮತು "ೆಂಕJೇ[ "ೈ
ರವರು ಮರಣ Qೊಂ ದರೂ ಸಹ ನಮ ಸ ಾದ ಅಂದ5ೆ Rೆಂಗಳ]ರು ನಗರ
f¯Éè, ಆ!ೇಕM ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸRಾ Qೋಬ7, §UÀÎನ ೊ9^ /ಾ>ಮದ ಹ_ೇ
ಸ"ೇ .ನಂ.96, Qೊಸ ಸ"ೇ ನಂ.117 ರ(), +,ೕಣ 4 ಎಕ5ೆ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ
ಸಂಬ ,ದಂ ೆ !ಾಂಕ:24/08/2024 ರಂದು ಅ RೆDೆಯ
ಉಪ!ೋಂ`ಾWಾX ಾ ಯವರ ಕaೇ ಯ() ದbಾ"ೇಜು ಸಂcೆP ABL-1-
06752-2024-25 ರಂ ೆ ಒಂದು ಕ>ಯದ ಕ5ಾರು ಪತ>ವನು8 ಸೃfG,
ನಮ/ೆ ಮತು ನಮ ಸ /ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ,ದಂ ೆ Hೕಸ ಮತು ವಂಚ!ೆಯನು8
Eಾ9ರು ಾ5ೆ ¸ÀzÀjà +ಷಯವ4 ನಮ/ೆ w½zÀÄ !ಾವ4 ೇ7ದ ೆ& ನಮ ನು8
ಅ"ಾಚP ಶಬಗ7ಂದ ಅಂದ5ೆ DೋಫU ನT ಮಗ!ೇ Rೋ7 ಮಕ&ಳ ಎಂದು
Rೈದು ನಮ/ೆ ೊDೆ Rೆದ ೆ Qಾjರು ಾgÉ.
ಆದ ಂದ ಸದ ೕ ಯವರ +ರುದk ಸೂಕ ಾನೂನು ಕ>ಮ ಜರು , ನಮ/ೆ
ಮತು ನಮ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ಸಂಬಂ ,ದಂ ೆ ಸೂಕ ರlWೆಯನು8 mೕಡRೇ ೆಂದು
ತಮ () +ನಂ , ೊಳ;< ೇ"ೆ ಎಂದು mೕ9ದ n1ಾ ದು $ೕ5ೆ/ೆ
ಪ>.ವ.ವರ ."
- 16 -
13. In the FIR, the complainant has alleged as under:
"¢£ÁAPÀ 31-07-2025 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 14-00 UÀAmÉUÉ
D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ¯ÉÆèÃPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½ ºÁ¯ÉÝãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ n. ¦¼Àî¥Àà
©£ï ¯ÉÃ: ಮ 5ಾಯಪZ ರವರು oಾWೆ/ೆ ಬಂದು mೕ9ದ ದೂ ನ
bಾ5ಾಂಶ"ೇ!ೆಂದ5ೆ, !ಾನು ºÁ¯ÉÝãÀºÀ½î /ಾ>ಮದವ!ಾ ದು £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÀ¸À¨Á
ºÉÆç½ §UÀΣÀzÉÆrØ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ºÀ¼Éà ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA 96 ºÉƸÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA 116
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 117 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 8 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ LNDSR
960/1960-61 gÀAvÉ 11-10-1966 gÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ
¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ D¢PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ಜ!ಾಂಗ ೆ& bೇ ದು ಮತು ಈ ಜYೕನು
PTCL /ೆ ಒಳಪಡುತ ೆ. ಈ ರು"ಾಗ !ಾ"ೇ bಾ Xೕನದ()ದು
Eಾ(ಕ5ಾ ದರು ಈ ರು"ಾಗ ನಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು bೇ
ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ರವ /ೆ !ಾಂಕ 17-03-2020-21 ರ() 5ೆ+ನೂP
ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8 Qಾಗೂ ೋp ಇ ಾP ಗಳನು8 !ೋ9 ೊಳ<ಲು
!ೇY,ರು ೇ"ೆ. ಅವ /ೆ GPA ಮೂಲಕ !ೇY, ANK-4-
00426/2021 ರ() qಸGU Eಾ9ರು ೇ"ೆ. ೆಲವ4 ವಷ ಗಳ ನಂತರ
ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ರವ /ೆ ನಮ/ೆ ವPವQಾರದ() ಸ Qೊಂದದ ಾರಣ
ವjೕಲರ ಮುcಾಂತರ !ೋFೕL ಗಳನು8 ಸುEಾರು !ಾಲು& ಐದು Rಾ
mೕ9ದರು ಅವ ಂದ 1ಾವ4 ೇ ೕ ಯ ಉತರ Rಾರ ಾಗ ಪ > ೆ
ಪ>ಕಟWೆಯನು8 Eಾ9, ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ರವ /ೆ mೕ9ದ GPA ಯನು8
!ಾಂಕ 15-3-2023 ರ() ಆ!ೇಕM !ೊಂದs ಅX ಾ ಗಳ ಕtೇ ಯ()
ANK-4-00637/2023-24 gÀAvÉ ªÀeÁ gÀzÀÝwAiÀiÁV f¦J C£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ತದ ನಂತರ ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ರವರು !ಾವ4 Eಾ9ದ GPA
ಾPನuM ಪ>ತ>ವನು8 ಇಟುG ೊಂಡು 5ಾv HೕಹT 5ಾಜು wT
ಚಂಗಮ5ಾಜು ರವ /ೆ ಅ >$ಂp ಅನು8 !ಾಂಕ 23-08-2024 ರ(),,
ABL-06752/2024 ರಂ ೆ Eಾ9ರು ಾ5ೆ. ಈ ಅ >$ಂp 7ದ
ನಮ/ೆ ಅದರ +ರುದk ಆ!ೇಕM x(ೕL oಾWೆಯ() ದೂರು mೕ9ದು ಈ
ಸಂಬಂದ ಆ!ೇಕM x(ೕL oಾWೆಯ() !ಾಂಕ 08-04-2025 gÀAzÀÄ
PÉæöÊA.£ÀA. 92/2025 PÀ®A 336(2), 338, 340(2), 318(4),
352, 351(2), 351(3) eÉÆvÉUÉ 3(5) ©.J£ï.J¸ï ೕ ಾP ಪ>ಕರಣ
ಾಖDಾ ದು ತmcೆಯ()ರು ೆ.
- 17 -
ಈ ರು"ಾಗ ನಮ ಜYೕನು ಕಬ7ಸುವ ಾರಣ ಸೂಯ ,F 4
!ೇ ಹಂತ ೆ& Qೊಂ ೊಂ9ರುವ ಾರಣ PTCL ಒಳಪಟGರು ಸಹ SC-ST
ಾ®A ಅನ ಯ+ದರು ಮತು FIR ಆ ದರು Dೋ ಾಯುಕ ಕtೇ ಯ()
ದೂರು mೕ9ದರು ಸಹ Dೆj&ಸ ೆ RೇM ೆ/ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು
ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ಮತು 5ಾv HೕಹT 5ಾy ರವರುಗಳ; ನಕ(
ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8 ಸೃfG, ಕ>ಯಪತ>ವನು8 qಗs ಉಪ !ೋಂದWಾX ಾ ಗಳ
ಕtೇ ಯ() !ಾಂಕ 04-07-2025 ರ() JGN-1-01272/2025-
26 ರಂ ೆ ರ ಾ ದ GPA ಯ ಮುcಾಂತರ ಕ>ಯಪತ>ವನು8
Eಾಡು ರು ಾ5ೆಂದು +aಾರ ನನ/ೆ /ೊ ಾCತು !ಾಂಕ 07-07-
2025 ರಂದು !ಾನು ಮತು ನನ8 bೆ8ೕ-ತ5ಾದ ಸು5ೇ[ ಮತು ಮುm5ಾಜು
ರವರು bಾಯಂ ಾಲ ಸುEಾರು 5-00 ಗಂJೆಯ() ಬಗzನ ೊ9^ /ಾ>ಮದ
ನಮ ಜYೕನು ಬ7/ೆ Qೋ ಇ ಾಗ ಅ ೇ ಸಮಯ ೆ& ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU ಮತು
5ಾv HೕಹT 5ಾy ಅವರ ಸಹಚರ5ೊಂ /ೆ ನಮ ಜYೕನು ಬ7/ೆ
ಬಂದು ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU ಮತು HೕಹT 5ಾy ರವರು ನನ/ೆ Dೋ ಸೂ_ೆ
ಮಗ!ೆ 1ಾ5ೋ mೕನು ನಮ ಜYೕನು ಬ7/ೆ ಬರಲು QೊDೆಯ ನನ8 ಮಗ
Qೋ/ೋ ನಮ ಜYೕmmಂದ ಆaೆ/ೆ ಈ QೊDೆಯ ನನ8 ಮಗm/ೆ
ಸ 1ಾ ಬು ಕ(ಸRೇಕು ಏ ಸೂ_ೆ ಮಗ!ೆ mನ8 ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು8
ಒಬ|ಬ|ರ!ೆ8ೕ ಕ5ೆದು ೊಂಡು 1ಾವ ೕ !ಾನು Eಾ9 ೊಳ<Rೇಕು ಎಂದು
ನನ/ೆ /ೊತು ಈ ನನ8 ಮಗನನು8 Qೊ}ೆದು ಆaೆ ಕಳ;-,5ೋ ಎಂದು
¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ qೕವ Rೆದ ೆ Qಾjದರು !ಾನು ನನ8 bೆ8ೕ-ತರು ಅ()ಂದ
ಬರು ರು"ಾಗ ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU ಮತು 5ಾv HೕಹT 5ಾy ರವರು ನನ/ೆ
K QೊDೆಯ ನನ8 ಮಗ!ೆ ಇ!ೊ8ಂದು bಾ ಜYೕmನ ಹ ರ ಬಂ ೆ mನ8ನು8
E¯Éèà ಹೂ ಾj wಡು ೇ!ೆಂತ ೊDೆ Rೆದ ೆ Qಾjದರು. ನನ8 ಜYೕನನು8
ಕಬ7ಸಲು ಹವsಸು ದು ನಮ/ೆ ಮತು ನನ8 ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ& ರlWೆ ೊ9,
ಮತು ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ಮತು 5ಾv HೕಹT 5ಾಜು Qಾಗೂ ಅವರ
ಸಹಚರರು bೇ ೊDೆ Rೆದ ೆ bಾವ ಜmಕ"ಾ Kಾ mಂದ!ೆ, ವಂಚ!ೆ
Hೕಸ Qಾಗೂ ನಮ Eಾನ,ಕ -ಂbೆ Qಾಗು Qೆದ ೆ £ÉªÀÄä¢ ºÁUÀÆ
CªÁZÀå±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ eÁw ¤AzÀ£É F jÃwAiÀiÁV £Á£Á jÃwAiÀiÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ
eÁw ¤AzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ SC-ST d«ÄãÀÄ ಕಬ7ಸುವ ಹು!ಾ8ರ
Eಾ9 ೊಂಡು ೆಲವ4 ನಕ( ಾಖDೆಗಳನು8 ಸೃfG, ನಮ/ೆ
Qೆದ ಸು ರು ಾ5ೆ. ಆದ ಂದ ಚಂದ>?ೇಖU., ಮತು 5ಾv HೕಹT
- 18 -
5ಾy ರವರು Qಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಸಹಚರ ಂದ ರlWೆ ೊಡRೇಕು Qಾಗೂ Kಾ
mಂದ!ೆ ದೂರನು8 ಾಖ(, ೊಡRೇ ೆಂದು ೋರು ೇ!ೆ. ಈ +aಾರವನು8
ನಮ - ಯ /ೆ 7, ಈ ವಸ ತಡ"ಾ oಾWೆ/ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು
mೕಡು ೇ!ೆ ಅಂತ mೕ9ದ ದೂ ನ $ೕ5ೆ/ೆ ಪ>.ವ.ವರ ."
14. It is an admitted fact that prior to this complaint
case was registered against these appellants in Crime No.92 of
2025 dated 08th April 2025 by Anekal Police Station and FIR
was submitted to the court. In that case, these appellants have
filed application for anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. No.5237
of 2025 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (Rural) District sitting at Anekal. Vide Order dated
24th June, 2025, anticipatory bail was granted to the appellants
with conditions. After obtaining the anticipatory bail, the
appellant No.1 has executed registered sale deed in the
capacity of GPA holder in favour of appellant No.2 on the
strength of the sale dated 4th July 2025, in respect of the same
property involved in Crime No.92 of 2025. On the strength of
this sale deed, accused/appellants went to the land in dispute
and abused Chandrashekar and Ram Mohan Raj by taking their
caste name within the public view.
15. With regard to offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act is concerned, the trial Court has held
- 19 -
that there are no prima facie material to attract the commission
of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST (PoA) Act.
16. With regard to offence punishable under Sections
3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (PoA) Act is concerned, at
paragraph 11 of judgment, the trial Court has observed as
under:
"11. If facts and circumstances of this case and materials
on record are considered in light of above principles of
law, it is clear that prima facie case is made out in the
complaint averments against the present petitioners for
the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f) and
3(1)(g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 though no prima facie
case made out in the complaint against the petitioners for
the offences under Section 3(1)(r) (s) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989. It is because, Section 3(1)(f) deals with offence of
wrongfully occupying or cultivating any land of member of
SC or ST or getting such land transferred. Section 3(1)(g)
deals with offence of wrongfully dispossessing or
interfering with enjoyment of rights of member of SC or
ST over his land. In the present case on hand, it is
alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have created
documents such as Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2024
and sale deed dated 04.07.2025 and thereby unlawfully
transferred the land of the respondent No.2 and
interfering with the rights of respondent No.2 and his
- 20 -
family members in violation of PTCL Act. It is pertinent to
note that the respondent No.2 has lodged complaint
against petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 92/2025 of
Anekal PS alleging that the respondent No.2 and his
family members had executed GPA dated 17.03.2021 in
favour of petitioner No.1 and subsequently canceled the
same but the petitioners have created agreement of sale
and other documents on behalf of family members of
respondent No.2 including Yellappa.T, Ramya and
Venkatesh. V though the said three persons have already
expired. The respondent No.2 has produced death
certificates of said three persons who died on 24.07.2022,
08.05.2022 and 06.01.2025. It is further clear from
certified copy of anticipatory bail order in Crl. Mis.
No.5237/2025 that the present petitioners who were also
accused in Crime No. 92/2025 on 24.06.2025, have
obtained anticipatory bail order in the said case. It is
further clear from copy of the sale deed dated 04.07.2025
that the petitioner No.1 executed such sale deed on
behalf of family members of the respondent No.2 (as GPA
holder) including the deceased Yellappa.T, Ramya and
Venkatesh. V, showing them alive and aged 68 years, 31
years and 41 years respectively. Thus, it can be inferred
that though the petitioners were aware of deaths of said
three persons after obtaining anticipatory bail in Crime
No.92/2025 (wherein the deaths of said three persons are
disclosed in complaint and FIR), the petitioners entered
into sale deed dated 04.07.2025 showing the said three
persons as alive. Thus it is prima facie clear that the
petitioners wrongfully got transferred land of respondent
No.2 and his family members and interfered with their
rights over their land. This court cannot hold mini trial at
this stage and has to consider the complaint averments.
- 21 -
Hence, there is a prima facie case in complaint averments
as regard to the offences under Section 3(1)(f) and
3(1)(g) of the Act. It is not clear from the complaint
averments as to whether any member of public (not
merely friends or relatives of respondent No.2) was
present when the petitioners intimidated and humiliated
the caste of respondent No.2. In other words, it is not
clear whether the caste of respondent No.2 was
humiliated in public view and as such, no prima facie case
is made out as regard to offences under Section
3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. Consequently, there is legal hurdle
or bar for grant of anticipatory bail under Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 in favour of petitioners."
17. On re-appreciation of entire material on record, I do
not find any error/illegality in the order impugned passed by the
trial Court.
18. The submission of the learned Counsel for the
appellants that the dispute is purely civil in nature and
appellants have not committed any forgery nor have cheated
respondent No.2, cannot be accepted at this stage for reason
that after obtaining anticipatory bail, appellant No.1 has
executed sale deed in the capacity of GPA holder in favour of
appellant No.2. Whether sale deed executed by the GPA holder
is genuine or not has to be examined by the Investigating
Officer. Under such circumstances, the interrogation of these
- 22 -
appellants is very much required, since there are prima facie
material to attract alleged commission of offence under
provisions under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (PoA)
Act, 1989. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, at this stage, it is not just proper to express
any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. At this
stage, it is not just and proper to grant anticipatory bail in view
of bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
Accordingly, I answer the Point that arose for consideration in
the negative.
19. For the aforestated reasons and discussions I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
