Sri M Arunachalam Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.286/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 352, 351(3), 329(3), 190 OF BNS 2023 AND SEC. 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT IN TUNGANAGARA POLICE STATION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(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 the event of their arrest in Crime No.286/2025 of

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26965 CRL.A No. 1323 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Tunga Nagar Police Station, before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(3), 329(3), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( for short 'BNS'), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Anand.

¶34

Heard Sri. Prasad B.S., learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

R E A S O N S

¶39

Respondent No.2 has filed the first information with

¶40

Tunganagar Police Station, Shivamogga against accused Nos.1 to 4 making allegations that, he is the owner of a portion of

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26965 CRL.A No. 1323 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

land bearing Sy.No.120 of Sogane village, Shivamogga taluk, which totally measures 1804.29 acres out of the land owned by respondent No.2, in respect of 2.08 acres, hand written ROR was maintained, remaining 2 acres was the kharab land, where respondent No.2 was growing ginger.

¶44

It is the contention of respondent No.2 that the accused are powerful persons. On 20.05.2025, at 9.30a.m., they came to the spot with club and machete, insisted to vacate the agricultural land, criminally intimidated to cause death, they also referred to their caste as they belongs to Scheduled Caste and abused them in filthy language and thereby committed the offences as stated above.

¶45

Undisputedly, respondent No.2 has filed the suit OS.No.505/2025 seeking permanent injunction against the accused in respect of the very same agricultural land immediately after registration of the present FIR. Therefore, the possession of the property in question could be safeguarded by respondent No.2, as they have already approached the civil court for necessary relief. Even though it is stated that the accused were armed with club, machete etc and criminally

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26965 CRL.A No. 1323 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

intimidated to cause the death of respondent No.2, admittedly, they have not assaulted respondent No.2, and he has not sustained any injury.

¶49

With regard to abusing respondent No.2 in filthy language by referring to his caste, it is the specific contention of the informant that the incident had taken place in an agricultural field, where, except respondent No.2 and the accused, there is no references to the presence of anybody else. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no prima-facie materials are placed to invoke the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶50

It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellants are required for interrogation. It is also not the contention of the prosecution that they were having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26965 CRL.A No. 1323 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶54

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The appeal is allowed.

¶57

The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.286/2025 of Tunga Nagar Police Station.

¶58

The appellants are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶59

a. The appellants shall furnish the bonds in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶60

b. The appellants shall not commit similar offences;

¶61

c. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶62

d. The appellants shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26965 CRL.A No. 1323 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶66

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶67

BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri M Arunachalam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Arunachalam 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

Anuradha Baliga Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.S. Girish Vs State of Karnataka

Nanjunda Shivaraju Vs State by