Sri Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka by

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.756/2025 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.DIST. AND SESSION COURT, RAMANAGARA, AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.134/2025 REGISTERED AT AKKUR P.S FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 318(4), 351(2), 352 AND 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 READ WITH SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 WITH A DIRECTION TO RELEASE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN THE ABOVE CRIME.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:42906 CRL.A No. 2096 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Crl.Misc.No.756/2025, dated 27.09.2025.

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent Smt. Lakshmamma H. against accused Nos.1 to 3/appellants herein, a case has been registered in Crime No. 134/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 353(b) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(5) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶35

The appellants filed application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection order, the appellants herein have preferred this appeal.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42906 CRL.A No. 2096 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

It is the submission of learned counsel for the

¶39

appellants that there was delay of 51 days in filing the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint do not reveal as the abusive words used by the accused and no public were present at the time of commission of this offence. Hence, the provisions under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not applicable to the case on hand. Now, the investigation is already completed. The accused are not required for further investigation. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶40

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Rangaswamy, submitted that there are sufficient materials to attract the alleged offences in view of Section 18 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accused are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays to reject this appeal.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:42906 CRL.A No. 2096 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The alleged commission of offences took place on 14.06.2025, the complaint came to be filed on 04.08.2025 and there is delay of 51 days in filing the complaint. On perusal of prosecution papers it is crystal

¶45

clear that Investigating Officer has not taken any steps to secure the accused by issuing the notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023. Without taking any steps to secure the accused, the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for commission of alleged offences. This conduct of Investigating Officer clearly reveals that the accused is not at all required for any investigation. Considering the

¶46

nature and gravity of offences and previous antecedents of the accused, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶49

ii. The order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Crl.Misc.

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:42906 CRL.A No. 2096 of 2025

¶51

6 -

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

No.756/2025 dated 27.09.2025 for the aforestated offences, is hereby, set aside.

¶54

iii. Consequently, the application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is allowed.

¶55

iv. The appellants shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶56

v. The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶57

vi. The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witness in any manner.

¶58

vii. The appellants shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing.

¶59

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶60

NM

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Basavaraju v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Basavaraju v. State of Karnataka by

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

J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Lalatendu Patra

Sri.K.J.Shivashankar @ Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinath K a @ Seenappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivashankara @ Shivu @ Tharakari Shiva Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaykumar @ Viji S/O Krishnappa Vs State by H.S.R. Layout Police

Sri Hemantha Kumar S Vs State by Kunigal Police Station