[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K.S. Ravikumar vs R.Ramaiah on 23 February, 2026

                             -1-
                                      CRL.A No.2213 of 2023
                                   c/w CRL.A No.798 of 2024


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2213 OF 2023
                        c/w
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.798 OF 2024

Crl. Appeal No.2213/2023

BETWEEN:

K. S. RAVIKUMAR
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 404, B-8,
KAILASH APARTMENTS,
JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE,
MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-560 059.
                                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K. S. RAVIKUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

1.    R. RAMAIAH
      S/O. RAMAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

2.    SURESH RAMAIAH
      S/O. RAMAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

3.    MANJU R.
      D/O. RAMAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

      ALL ARE R/AT FLAT NO. 504, B-8,
      KAILASH APARTMENTS,
                             -2-
                                     CRL.A No.2213 of 2023
                                  c/w CRL.A No.798 of 2024


     JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE,
     MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
     BENGALURU-560 059.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MATHAD CHIDANANDASWAMY, ADV.)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(1) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 BY THE PARTY IN PERSON PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (CCH NO.71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.10487/2023,
REMAND BACK THE CASE FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MIGHT
DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

Crl. Appeal No.798/2024

BETWEEN:

K. S. RAVIKUMAR
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 404, B-8,
KAILASH APARTMENTS,
JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE,
MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-560 059.
                                              ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K. S. RAVIKUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

1.   R. RAMAIAH
     S/O. RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

2.   SURESH RAMAIAH
     S/O. RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                               -3-
                                       CRL.A No.2213 of 2023
                                    c/w CRL.A No.798 of 2024


3.   MANJU R.
     D/O. RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

     ALL ARE R/AT FLAT NO. 504, B-8,
     KAILASH APARTMENTS,
     JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE,
     MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
     BENGALURU-560 059.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MATHAD CHIDANANDASWAMY, ADV.)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 BY THE PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (CCH NO.71) IN SPL.C.NO.1806/2023 FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 420, 167, 471 OF
IPC.


     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                      CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/party-in-person has preferred these appeals

challenging the order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil

and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71) (for short "the trial

Court"). Criminal Appeal No.2213 of 2023 is preferred against

the order dated 26th October, 2023 passed in Criminal Misc.

No.10487 of 2023 as the trial Court has granted interim bail to

the respondents. Criminal Appeal No.798 of 2024 is preferred

against the Order dated 16th December, 2023 passed in Special

Case No.1806 of 2023 as the trial Court has allowed the bail

applications of the respondent.

2. After receipt of notice, respondents have appeared through

their Counsel.

3. The party-in-person in Criminal Appeal No.2213 of 2023

has reiterated the averments made in the Memorandum of

Appeal. The main ground urged by the appellant in the Appeal

is that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and unjustified.

Accused has not stated any cogent ground for the enlargement

on interim bail. The trial Court has not applied its judicious

mind while passing the impugned order. The impugned order

does not whisper anything regarding evidence marked by the

complainant. There is prima facie material against the accused

which was intentionally ignored by the Special Court. Further, it

is submitted that complaint was not given the opportunity to

oppose the bail application as required under Section 15A(5) of

the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Section 18 of the said Act bars the

accused from filing an application under Section 438 of Code of

Criminal Procedure for any offence committed under SC/ST

(PoA) Act when there is a prima facie case against the accused.

He would submit that the accused are repeated offenders. They

have not only committed repeated atrocities on the

complainant and his family, but have also repeatedly submitted

false caste certificate in various cases i.e. Crime No. 22 of

2022, Crime No. 137 of 2022 and Crime No. 149 of 2023.

Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. To substantiate his

arguments, he has relied on the following decisions:

i) ROHIT BISHNOI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER - CRL. APPEAL NO.2078 of 2023 DECIDED ON 24.07.2023;

ii) HARIRAM BHAMBHI v. SATYANARAYAN AND ANOTHER - (2024)20 SCC 748;

iii) PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN v. UNION OF INDIA -

2020 SCC OnLine SC 159;

iv) HARJIT SINGH v. INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER & ANOTHER (2021)19 SCC 355.

4. In Criminal Appeal No. 798 for 2024, the appellant would

submit that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and

unjustified. The accused has not stated any cogent ground for

the enlargement of bail in their regular bail application. The

Special Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application filed

by the accused in Crl. Misc. No.10487 of 2023 without

providing opportunity to the complainant to submit his

objection/arguments, which is clear violation of Section 15A(5)

of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and also the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of ROHIT BISHNOY (supra). He would further

submit as to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal

and sought for allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would

submit that the appellant has appeared before the trial Court

and has not filed any objection to the appeal in the impugned

order i.e., interim bail order passed by the trial Court dated

26th December, 2023 and the trial Court has provided an

opportunity to the appellant on 31st October, 2023 before

passing the order on merits of the bail application.

Complainant was present and trial Court has provided an

opportunity to the complainant to file his objection and case

was posted to 08th November, 2023. On 08th November, 2023,

the complainant has not filed any objection to this bail

application. Same is also noted in the impugned order dated

16th December, 2023. The complainant has not filed any

objection. After granting interim anticipatory bail, notice was

issued to the complainant and case was posted to 31st October,

2023. On that day, complainant was present and case was

posted to 08th November, 2023 to file objection. On 08th

November, 2023, the complainant/appellant had not filed any

objection. Same is noted in the Order sheet dated 08.11.2023

in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10487. Further, he would submit

that the complainant filed his written objection to the regular

bail application filed under Section 413 of CrPC. Same was

considered by the trial Court and passed a detailed order on

16th December, 2023 which is in accordance with law and facts.

Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned

orders passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of

appeals.

6. I have carefully examined the materials on record. Having

heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials

placed before this court, the following point would arise for my

consideration:

1. Whether the trial Court has failed to comply with

the mandatory provisions of Section 15A(5) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015

before granting interim bail to the

petitioners/accused in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.10487 of 2023 dated 26th October, 2023?

2. Whether the complainant has made out a ground

to interfere with the impugned order dated

16.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. No.1806 of

2023 and order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Crl.

Misc. No.10487 of 2023 by the trial Court?

3. What Order?

7. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: in the affirmative;

Point No.2: in the negative; and

Point No.3: as per final order.

Regarding Point No.1:

8. The complainant/appellant had filed a private complaint for

the offence under Sections 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 420, 167,

471 IPC and Section 3(1)(q) and 3(2)(ii) of the SC/ST (PoA)

Act, 1989. The case was registered in PCR No.17 of 2023.

After sworn statement, trial court has taken cognizance against

the accused and case was registered in Spl.C. No.1806 of 2023

and posted to 15th July, 2023. Thereafter, case was adjourned

to 17th July, 2023. On 19th August, 2023, accused were

present and case was posted to 20th October, 2023. On 20th

October, 2023, the complainant was present, accused remained

absent and CSM Advocate filed power for accused. Then case

was posted to 06th November, 2023. On that day, accused was

absent. NBW was issued against the accused and case was

posted to 16th December, 2023. Before that, i.e. on 08th

November, 2023, the Advocate for accused filed Application

under Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure. On that day,

the trial Court has passed the following order:

"Case advanced. A1 to 3 voluntarily present. Memo filed reporting service of notice to complainant with copy and speed post.

As complainant has not filed objections. The objections being not filed by the complainant in Crl.Mis.10487/2023, the same is disposed as accused are before court.

Accused voluntarily present before court. Accordingly, counsel for A1 to 3 files bail application U/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

Office to issue notice to complainant to file objections by 18.11.2023.

A1 to 3 being voluntarily present, in the Crl.Mis.10487/2023, this Court did granted interim bail on 20,.10.2023. As such the present A1 to 3 are released on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and shall abide by the conditions namely;

1. A1 to 3 shall not tamper prosecution witnesses.

2. A1 to 3 shall appear on all hearing date."

- 10 -

9. Then case was posted to 18th November, 2023. Before

that, the complainant has filed application under Section 309 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to advance the case from 18th to

09th November, 2023. On 16th December, 2023, the court has

passed this impugned order granting bail to the accused on

executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- each and further

directed the accused to furnish one surety/self-surety for the

likesum and also imposed two conditions.

10. With regard to the interim order dated 26th October, 2023

passed by the trial Court is concerned, the same reveals that

the trial Court has not provided any opportunity to the

complainant before passing this impugned order, which is

contrary to the provisions of Section 15A(5) of SC/ST (PoA)

Amendment Act, 2015. As per Order dated 20th November,

2025, this Court has called for report from the Presiding Officer

as to non-compliance of Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section

15A of Chapter 4A of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The Presiding

Officer has submitted the report in which the he has not

explained anything as to non-compliance of Sections 15A(4)

and (5) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

- 11 -

11. On re-appreciation, I find that the trial Court has failed to

comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 15A(5) of

SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. Since the trial Court has

already granted regular bail to the respondent, now the

question of setting aside the order dated 26th October, 2023

passed by the trial Court, does not arise as no purpose will be

served. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

Regarding Point No.2:

12. The complainant has filed objection to the bail application

on 16th December, 2023. Same is observed by the trial Court

and assigned reasons for grant of regular bail to the accused.

Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this

Criminal Appeal.

13. In paragraphs 14 to 18, the trial Court has observed as

under:

"14. This court gave opportunity to complainant to file objections by 08.11.2023. On that day complainant was absent and objections was not filed. The accused No.1 to 3 did surrendered in Spl.C.1806/2023, as such this court was pleased to dispose of the anticipatory bail application without going into merits, as not maintainable. This court as per the order dated 08.11.2023 has not granted bail to the accused No.1 to 3, on the bail application filed U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. However, this court

- 12 -

permitted the Accused No.1 to 3 to execute personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- on similar conditions as of orders passed on application U/s 438(1) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Mis.10487/2023 till filing objections.

15. On perusal of the citation and going through the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court as on 08.11.2023 there was no any bail application, either anticipatory or regular bail were pending when the accused did surrendered before this court. The memo has been filed disclosing accused have served the copy of the bail application even before the date of surrendering i.e., on 06.11.2023 by sending the copy of the bail application through RPAD to the present complainant, which is undisputed even when objections are filed now.

16. This court when considered the releasing of the Accused No.1 to 3 on personal bond in Spl.C.1806/2023 has not relied on the anticipatory bail, which has not been considered on merits and which was not at all pending on the date of order passed in this case.

17. Secondly, the Crl.A.2213/2023 has been filed only on 17.11.2023. Therefore, even as on 08.11.2023 the Crl.Mis.10847/2023 has not been decided on merits, that the A1 to 3 are entitled to have anticipatory bail. As such, as observed in para 4 of the Hon'ble Apex court, there was no any order of anticipatory bail granted by any of the courts, including this court. Therefore, this court feels, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex court in para 12, this court has not relied on any anticipatory bail order, but it has been observed interim bail has been granted on 20.10.2023 in the order sheet dated 08.11.2023 in this case. Therefore, the citation has no any application in the facts involved in this proceedings. The objections raised by the petitioner have no any bearing in the present bail application.

- 13 -

18. On considering the bail application of the accused, this court to secure the presence of the accused for appearance before this court is satisfied considering the permanent residence of the accused and their availability for conclusion of trial is satisfied to pass the following by answering the point No.1 in

the affirmative and Point No.2 as per the final order"

14. On careful re-examination, reconsideration and re-

appreciation of the materials on record, I do not see any factual

or legal error in the impugned order dated 16th December,

2023, passed by the trial Court. Hence, Point No.2 is answered

in the negative.

15. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i) It is held that the trial Court has failed to comply

with the mandatory provisions of Section 15A(5)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015;

ii) Criminal Appeals No.2213 of 2023 and 798 of

2024 are dismissed. However, the appellant is

at liberty to file necessary application for

cancellation of bail, if the respondents have