Varun Yadav J Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 092 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. SHYLAJA .N.S. D/O. LATE. SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALA, GUDDAHALLI, SHALINI BAR MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 024

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1

¶19

R2 - SD)

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:23368 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2025

¶21

2 -

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO EXERCISE APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND SET ASIDE THE REJECTION OF BAIL VIDE ORDER DATED 16.05.2025 PASSED HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-71) AND THEREBY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL, ON ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN CRIME NO.116/2025 DATED 16.04.2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V), 3(1)(W) OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 AND SECTION 3(5), 318(2), 352, 69 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023, KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH71) THE APPELLANT ON BAIL.

¶24

THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant -accused No.1 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 Act’ for short) in Crime No.116/2025 of Kodigehalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w) of the Act and Section 3(5), 318(2), 352, 69 of the Bharatiya

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23368 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Shyalaja N.S.

¶31

Heard Smt. Monica Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

“Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The appellant being accused No.1 was apprehended on 01.05.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. The informant aged about 26 years has made allegations against the accused that he has committed various acts including the sexual assault under promise to marry and he humiliated her

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23368 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

by referring to her caste in public. Admittedly, the appellant is not required for further investigation. He is also not required to be detained in custody for any other purpose except to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellant may be granted bail subject to conditions which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

¶40

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed.

¶43

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.116/2025 of Kodigehalli 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:

¶44

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23368 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶49

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.

¶50

On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify 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.

¶51

Hand delivery of this order is permitted.

¶52

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶53

BH

¶54

CT:VS: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Varun Yadav J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Yadav J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prasad B @ Kunhzi Vs State Ofkarnataka

Sri. Ravindra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Central Diocese Vs Mr J C Sampath Kumar

G.R. Bhargava Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Suresh Vs the State by Police Inspector

R. Venkatachalaiah Vs State of Karnataka