Disposed

Vasanth Kumar. B. N. v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024CRL.A/260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 challenging the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court held that while the prosecution could seek bail cancellation for alleged condition violations, the Special Court had not yet passed such an order, so no immediate disposal was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of; the Special Court is directed to return certified copies of documents.

Vasanth Kumar. B. N. Vs State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38043 CRL.A No. 260 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 260 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VASANTH KUMAR B.N., S/O. B.V. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.177, BETTADASANAPURA, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 114.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

R. PRABHAKAR REDDY S/O. N. RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38043 CRL.A No. 260 of 2024

¶14

RAMESH M.V., S/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 121, NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE, MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDER AND CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1448/2023, ON THE FILE HONBLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND REMAND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

In this appeal preferred by the complainant, he has challenged the grant of anticipatory bail to Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.1 and 2 by the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:38043 CRL.A No. 260 of 2024

¶24

The learned Sessions Judge, vide Order dated 09.08.2023, while allowing the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and enlarging Accused Nos.1 and 2 on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.168/2023 registered at Electronic City Police Station, has imposed the following conditions:

¶25

(a) The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order.

¶26

(b) The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall not tamper the witnesses inducement or otherwise.

¶27

(c) The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall not commit similar offences and shall not involve in any other offences.

¶28

(d) The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the court.

¶29

(e) The petitioner No.1./PrabhakarReddy and petitioner No.2/Ramesh M.V. shall give their personal attendance before the SHO of Electronic City Police Station, on every Sunday and Wednesday between 10 am., to 5 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶30

(f) The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall keep the jurisdictional Court and Investigating Officer informed in writing under acknowledgment about change in their address, if any.

¶31

If in case, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 violates any of the conditions as stated above, the Prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38043 CRL.A No. 260 of 2024

¶33

The afore-mentioned crime was registered against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 426, 427 and 447 of IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST (POA) Act'), in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 14.07.2023, wherein it is alleged that on the said day, the persons who are in no way concerned with the complainant's property bearing Survey Nos.43 and 75 of Bettadasanapura village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru south taluk, trespassed into the property with JCB and demolished the compound wall etc. Subsequent to registration of the above crime, the Police have charge-sheeted the accused for the offence mentioned in the F.I.R and Section 174 of IPC.

¶34

The contention of the appellant/complainant is that, after obtaining anticipatory bail by the accused, they never appeared before the Investigating Officer, in spite of issuance of several notices and therefore, they have violated the bail conditions. It is contended that, the Investigating Officer has invoked Section 174 of IPC in the charge sheet, hence, the bail granted to the accused is liable to be cancelled.

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:38043 CRL.A No. 260 of 2024

¶36

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 has filed statement of objections, denying the allegations made by the appellant/complainant.

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed a report dated 04.09.2024 of the Assistant Police Commissioner, Electronic City Sub-Division, Bengaluru city and K.G.Halli SubDivision, Bengaluru city, wherein it is stated that the accused have not complied with the bail conditions.

¶39

While passing the order, the learned Special Court has specifically observed that if in case, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 violates any of the conditions as stated, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Either the prosecution or the complainant can seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated. Obviously, the complainant or the prosecution has not approached the Special Court which has granted anticipatory bail to accused persons, seeking cancellation of the bail on the ground of violation of conditions. If any such application is filed and order is passed, the said order will be appealable under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act before this Court. Hence, reserving liberty to file necessary

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:38043 CRL.A No. 260 of 2024

¶41

¶42

application before the Special Court seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of conditions, the present appeal is

¶43

disposed of.

¶44

If any such application is filed, the learned Sessions Judge shall pass necessary orders, in accordance with law.

¶45

The office is directed to return the certified copies of the documents furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant receiving the Photo Copies of the same.

¶46

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶47

BNV

¶48

ct-snn/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Vasanth Kumar. B. N. v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanth Kumar. B. N. v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaraj Alias Shivappa Vs the State by

Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudraiah B P Vs Th State

Sri Kumara Vs State by Shankaranarayana Police Station

Mahesh R Vs State of Karnataka

Chetankumar@ Chetu @Basaralu Chetu Vs State of Karnataka