Karnataka High Court

Devaraj. K. P vs State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2025

                           -1-
                                   CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
      DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                         BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2201 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

DEVARAJ K. P.
S/O PUTTEGOWDA B.D.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT KODALU VILLAGE,
KELAGOOR POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
TALUK AND DISTRICT-577548.
                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADV.)

AND:

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      TOWN POLICE STATION
      REPRESENTED BY:
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT BUILDING,
      BANGALORE-560001.

2.    DEVARAJ M.C.,
      S/O CHINNA BOVI,
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
      R/AT MEDARAHALLI,
      ESHWARAHALLI POST,
      LAKHYA HOBLI,
      CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY KUM. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL SPP.)

     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27.10.2025 PASSED
                                 -2-
                                       CRL.A No. 2201 of 2025


IN CRL.MISC.NO.519/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN
CR.NO.175/2025     REGISTERED       AT      TOWN      P.S.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 351(2),
352 R/W 3(5) OF IPC, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST
(POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, WITH A DIRECTION TO
RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN THE SAID CRIME.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   18.11.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                            CAV JUDGMENT

Appellant has preferred this appeal against order dated

27th October 2025, passed in Criminal Misc.No.519 of 2025 by

the I Additional Sessions & Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru (for

short "the trial Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the

basis of complaint lodged by one Devaraj M.C., Chikkamagalur

Town Police registered a case in Crime No.175 of 2025 against

accused 1 to 3 for offence punishable and sections 352, 115(2)

and 351(2) read with section 3(5) of Indian Penal Code and

sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short

"SC/ST (PoA) Act. Appellant-Accused 1 and 2 have filed

application under section 482 of BNS 2023, seeking

anticipatory bail. Learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the

application by granting bail to petitioner No.2 and rejected the

bail application filed by petitioner No.1 (the appellant herein).

Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail, Petitioner

No.1/appellant, has preferred this appeal.

3. Sri N.V. Srikanth, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has

erred in rejecting the bail application and the same is opposed

to facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case. He would

submit that the complainant is silent about the date of incident.

Even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are taken at their

face value, the same does not constitute any offence against

the present appellant. The allegation made against the

appellant in the FIR are absolutely false, motivated, and

intended only to tarnish his image. He would further submit

that, to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the

intention of the accused must be established. In the case on

hand, there is no such evidence made out. The trial court has

rejected the bail application on the ground that there was some

financial transaction between the Appellant and Respondent

No.2, which is admitted by the appellant. Use of abusive words,

without intention to humiliate on the ground of caste and

without the same being in public view, does not constitute an

offence under the penal provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The

trial Court has enlarged Accused No.2 on bail, but without

assigning proper and cogent reasons, has rejected the bail

application preferred by the present appellant. There are no

medical records or wound certificates produced to depict any

injury, allegedly caused to respondent No.2. Only with an

intention of harassing the appellant, respondent No.2 has taken

undue advantage of his caste and lodged a false complaint. To

substantiate his argument, he relies on the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of SHAJAN SKARIYA v. THE STATE

OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in 2024 SUPREME (SC)

688. On the above grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal.

4. As against this, Smt. Asma Kauser, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-

State, would submit that the trial Court has properly

appreciated the material on record. There are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court.

She would submit that there are prima-facie materials to

attract the penal provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Hence,

there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act to grant

anticipatory bail. On all these grounds, she sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have examined the materials placed before this

court. On the basis of complaint filed by one Devaraj M.C.,

Chikkamagalur Town Police have registered case in Crime

No.175 of 2025 against Devaraj-Accused No.1 and Virupaksha-

Accused No.2 and one unknown person as accused No.3 for the

offence punishable under sections 352, 115(2) and 351(2) read

with section 3(5) of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

6. It is relevant to extract the complaint filed by the

complainant. The same reads as under:

             " ಷಯ: ನನ        ೕ ೆ ಹ ೆ     ಾ    ಾ   ಂದ£É   ಾ ರುವ ಬ ೆ
     ದೂರು.
             ಾನು     ೕಲ ಂಡ   "ಾಸದ$ %ಾಸ%ಾ&ರು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ, ಸು ಾರು 1 ªÀgÉ
     ವಷ*ಗಳ -ಂ.ೆ .ೇವ/ಾಜ, %ಾಸ: PÉÆÃqÁ¼ÀÄ, ಮೂ              ೆ/ೆ 'ಾಲೂಕು
     ಈತನು ಲ5ಾ6       ಾ7ಮದ    ಾ .ಾ8ಗ ಬಂದು 9ೕಜದ ಶುಂ;ಯನು ಒಂದು
     =ೕಲ5ೆ ರೂ.6,500 ಗಳಂ'ೆ         ಾತ ಾ       60 9ೕಜದ ಶುಂ;=ೕಲಗಳನು

'ೆ ೆದು5ೊಂಡು >ೋ&ರು'ಾ( ೆ. ಇದರ ಒಟುA ಹಣ ರೂ.3,90,000 ಗಳC ಆ&ರುತ(.ೆ. ಈ ಹಣವನು 5ೊ ಎಂದು 5ೇF.ಾಗ ಾ"ೆ ಾ ದು8 ಮುಂGನ ಂಗಳC ಎಂದು ಸಬೂ§Ä >ೇF5ೊಂಡು ಹಣವನು 5ೊಡ.ೆ ಸ'ಾHಸು (ದ8, Dಗ ಾನು 5ೋIಾ¼ÀÄ ಾ7ಮ5ೆ >ೋ& .ೇವ/ಾಜುರವರ$ ಶುಂ; ¨Á¥ÀÄÛ ಹಣವನು 5ೇF.ಾಗ ಅ$ಯೂ ಕೂಡ ನನ ೆ CªÁåZÀåªÁV Kೈದು ºÉದMN ಕಳC-Nದ8ರು. ಈ&ರು%ಾಗ ನನ ¨Á§ÄÛ ಹಣವನು .ೇವ/ಾಜರವMಂದ

5ೊ N5ೊ ಎಂದು =ಕ ಮಗಳOರು ಾ7 ಾಂತರ P$ೕQ oÁuÉUÉ ದೂರು ಅR*ಯನು ೕ zÉÝ, ಇದರ ಸಂಬಂಧ Cfð TಾರUೆ ೆಂದು ಾ7 ಾಂತರ P$ೕQ ಅವರು ನನ ನು ಮತು( ಎದುರು.ಾರ/ಾದ : .ೇವ/ಾಜು gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉ¬Ä¹ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå §UÉºÀj¹PÉÆ½î ºÉÃ½ oÁuÉ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÝgÀÄ. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 7-30 gÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ mÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ zÉÃªÀgÁd£À ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JA§ ¹lÖ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆA¸ÀAvÀ zÉÃªÀgÁd£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ KPÁKQ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÊ¬ÄAzÀ ¨É¤ßUÉ vÀ¯ÉUÉ ªÀÄÆVUÉ, ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ JzÉUÉ, ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ªÀqÀØeÁw ಸೂ"ೆಮಕ ಳ, ನನ ೕ ೆ ೆ PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ CಷುA Vೈಯ*£Á ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß 5ೊ ೆ ಾ ೈ$ ೆ >ೋಗು'ೆ(ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು 5ೊ ೆKೆದM5ೆ >ಾWರು'ಾ( ೆ. .ೇವ/ಾಜನ >ಾಗೂ ಆತನ ೊ'ೆಯ°è ಬಂGದ8 ರೂXಾY ಮತು( ಮ'ೊ(ಬZರ >ೆಸರು ನನ ೆ ೊ (ಲ, ಇವರು ಕೂಡ ನನ ೆ .ೈ-ಕ%ಾ& 5ೈಗFಂದ ಮತು( 5ಾ$ ಂದ >ೊIೆದು ನನ ನು ಅವರು ತಂGದ8 5ಾMನ$ ಬಲವಂತ%ಾ& ತುಂ95ೊಳ[ಲು >ೋ.ಾಗ ೋ ದಂತಹ ನನ ೊ'ೆಯ$ದ8 ಮಂಜ\ೋ , ನಂಜುಂಡ, ಅಣ]ಯ6 ಮತು( ಮದ£ïgÀವರು ೕಲ ಂಡ ಮೂವMಂದ ನನ ನು 9 N5ೊಂ ರು'ಾ(/ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ಸ5ಾ*M ಎಂ R ಆಸ_'ೆ7 ೆ .ಾಖ®Ä ಾ ರು'ಾ(/ೆ. ಈ ಘಟ ೆಯ ಬ ೆ ನಗರ P$ೕQ oÁuÉAiÀÄ P$ೕಸರು ಬಂ.ಾಗ ನಮb ಊMನ -Mಯರು ಮತು( ಮುಖಂಡರ$ ಚ=*N ದೂರು ೕಡುವe.ಾ& FN.ೆ8, ನಂತರದ$ ನಮb ಮ ೆಯವರು >ಾಗೂ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ$ ಚ=*N ಮತು( -Mಯರ$ ಚ=*N ಈ ಘಟ ೆ ಬ ೆ 5ಾನೂನು ಕ7ಮಜರು&ಸKೇ5ೆಂದು ೕ ಾ* N ಈ Gನ G ಾಂಕ 09.10.2025 ರಂದು fಾUೆ ೆ ತಡ%ಾ& ಬಂದು ೕಲ ಂಡ .ೇವ/ಾಜ, ರುXಾY ಮತು( ಆತನ ೊ'ೆಯ$ದ8 ಇ ೊ ಬZರ ೕ ೆ 5ಾನೂನು ಕ7ಮ 5ೈ ೊಳ[Kೇ5ೆಂದು ಈ ದೂರನು ೕಡು (.ೆ8ೕ ೆ."

7. On perusal of complaint, it is noticed that the

alleged incident took place on 5th October, 2025 at 19:30

hours. The complaint came to be filed on 9th October, 2025. In

Column No.3(c) of the First Information Report, it is stated

that, the complainant has discussed with the elders of the

village and family members and thereafter as per their advice,

he has lodged the complaint with the police, after lapse of four

days. It is not in dispute that the trial court has already

granted bail to accused No.2. At this stage, the delay in filing

the complaint will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged

incident. Though the police have registered case on 9th October,

2025, till this day, the investigating officer has not taken any

steps to arrest this accused. The investigating officer has also

not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 35 of

BNSS, 2023. The conduct of Investigating Officer reveals that,

at present, the accused is not required for

interrogation/investigation. The commission of alleged offence

is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Till this

date, investigating officer has not recorded the statement of

witnesses who were present at the time of alleged incident.

Considering the nature and gravity of offence, antecedents of

the appellant, it is just and proper to allow this appeal with

conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed;

ii) Order dated 27th October, 2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.519 of 2025 by the I Additional

Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in respect of the present appellant, is set aside;

iii) Appellant/accused No.1 shall be released on bail on executing a self bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of his arrest in Crime No.175 of 2025, on the file of Town Police Station, Chikkamagaluru;

iv) Appellant/accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or to any Police Officer;