Sri.S. Girish Vs State of Karnataka

BY S.H.O. OF HANUR POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶17

SRI. SURESH S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. UDDANURU VILLAGE, HANUR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 105

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1

¶20

R2 - SD)

¶21

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED IN CRIME NO.120/2025 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26843 CRL.A No. 1315 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL DIRECTING THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHAMARAJANAGARA TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL CRIME NO.120/2025 OF HANURU POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT U/S 105, 3(5) OF BNS, 135 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT (AMEND) 2003 AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The appellant - accused No.2 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 SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short) in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur Police Station, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, Amendment 2015, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Suresha.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26843 CRL.A No. 1315 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard Sri. Balaraj.V.R., learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP 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

Appellant - accused No.2, is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 05.06.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is the contention of the prosecution that two cattle belonging to the informant were found missing since 04.06.2025. Later they were found dead due to electrocution in the land belonging to accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken illegal electricity connection to their land and have committed the offence as stated above.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26843 CRL.A No. 1315 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is pertinent to note that there is not even a whisper about the caste of the complainant or the accused or that the accused have committed any offence under SC/ST (POA) Act. But somehow, the Investigating Officer invoked the provisions of special enactment without any basis. The Investigating Officer, who registered the FIR is answerable for invoking the provisions of special enactment without application of mind.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the record of rights pertaining to the land in question. As per this document, accused No.2 along with two others was the owner of the land, where it is stated that the accused have taken electricity connection illegally. Prima-facie, accused No.1 is not the owner of land in question. Since, accused No.2 was apprehended on 05.06.2025, and he is detained in custody till now, I do not find any reason to detain him anymore as it is not the contention of the prosecution that he is required for further investigation, or his presence is required for any other purposes except to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is having any criminal antecedent. Therefore, I am of the opinion,

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26843 CRL.A No. 1315 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

that the appellants 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.

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The appeal is allowed.

¶47

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur 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:

¶48

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26843 CRL.A No. 1315 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

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.

¶55

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶56

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.

Sri.S. Girish v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S. Girish 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 S Prasanna Vs State by

Sri Prathap Muralidhar Vs Smt. Akshatha G

Vinayaka Alias Vinay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Arunachalam Vs State of Karnataka

Anuradha Baliga Vs State of Karnataka

Nanjunda Shivaraju Vs State by