Sri Adi Narayanachari a v Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI.A.V MANJUNATHA CHARI S/O.LATE.VENKATACHARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.4, TANK BUND ROAD EAST CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125 …APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

R/AT APPIREDDYHALLI VILLAGE

¶17

GUDIBANDE TALUK

¶18

CHIKKABALLAPUR 561 207 …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 15.07.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.390/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENTS OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.102/2025 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 115(2),118(1),352,351(2) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:32119 CRL.A No. 1497 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.390/2025 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura and release the appellants on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.102/2025 registered by the Gudibande police station for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’)

¶28

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience.

¶29

Factual matrix of the case:

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that one Ravi Kumar

¶31

son of Ashwathappa lodged the complaint stating that he is the only son of his father. On 26.06.2025, as usual he came from the land and after having dinner, he slept. Around about 8.30

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:32119 CRL.A No. 1497 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

p.m., he was awoke by his wife Asha by informing him that the

¶36

quarrel was being taken place near the shop of his cousin. He went there and saw that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were assaulting his father and cousin with hands. After pacifying the matter, he learnt that accused No.1 came by car and Accused No.2 came by motor cycle and stopped the vehicle in front of the house of his cousin and they asked his cousin to open the shop to give cigarette. When his cousin refused to open the shop, they started kicking the door. At that point of time, the incident of assault had taken place. It is also stated that the appellants have scolded the cousin of the complainant by naming his caste. Therefore, the complainant lodges the complaint against appellants. Based on the complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.102/2025 against the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

¶37

Heard Sri. Nanjunda Gowda M.R., learned counsel

¶38

for the appellants and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶39

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that though there are allegations made by the

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:32119 CRL.A No. 1497 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

complainant against the appellants in respect of the caste of the complainant, it would indicate that they did not specifically mention the name of the caste of which the complainant belongs to. Therefore, it is not required to be refrained being entertained the application for anticipatory bail.

¶44

It is further submitted that the appellants are the only earning members of their families and they will abide by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.

¶45

Per contra , learned HCGP vehemently opposed and submitted that the application of anticipatory bail in respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not maintainable in view of section 18(A) of the Act. Therefore, the bail application has to be rejected and the appeal has to be dismissed.

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for respective parties

¶47

and perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the appellants are stated to have quarrelled with cousin brother and father of the complainant and

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32119 CRL.A No. 1497 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

assaulted them with iron rod and scolded them by using filthy language by taking his caste name. However, on perusal of averments of the complaint, except, the words used that ‘you belongs to downtrodden community’, nothing has been specifically mentioned in respect of the community of the complainant. Moreover, the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellants other than the SC & ST (POA) Act, are not so severe. Therefore, prima-facie , I am of the considered view that the appellants may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶51

In the light of the observations made above, I

¶52

proceed to pass the following:-

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The criminal appeal is allowed .

¶55

ii) The order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.390/2025 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura is set aside.

¶56

iii) The appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.102/2025 of Gudibande Police Station,

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:32119 CRL.A No. 1497 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

registered for the aforesaid offences subject to the following conditions:

¶61

a) The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety each for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶62