Mohammed Neslin Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohammed Neslin Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; appellant enlarged on bail on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties (one local surety) for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions: not to hamper prosecution witnesses, to attend court regularly, not to leave Bengaluru Urban District jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court; violation of any condition entitles the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail; Office directed to return trial court records with a copy of the judgment for passing the modified conviction warrant forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, arraigned for offences under Ss.324, 326 IPC and S.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act in Crime No.157/2023, should be released on regular bail and the order dated 20.01.2025 in Spl. C.C.No.2226/2023 set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances, continuation of the appellant in judicial custody is no longer warranted, more so because the charge sheet is filed and the investigation is concluded.

Ratio / Principle

Once the police themselves have enlarged the appellant on bail, the appellant could not have been re-arrested; the learned Trial Judge was required to issue summons to secure his presence rather than directly issuing a warrant.

Key takeaways

The other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent bail conditions.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Regular bail — Accused initially booked under S.324 IPC (Crime No.157/2023, Suddaguntepalya P.S.) and enlarged on bail by the police themselves; upon collection of further material attracting S.326 IPC and S.3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, he was re-arrested pursuant to a warrant directly issued by the Special Court instead of summons — Held: once the police have enlarged an accused on bail, he could not have been re-arrested, and the trial court was required to issue summons to secure his presence; charge sheet having been filed and investigation concluded, continuation in judicial custody was no longer warranted; prosecution apprehensions could be met by stringent conditions — Appeal allowed; appellant enlarged on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties (one local surety) for the like sum, subject to conditions (no tampering with witnesses, regular court attendance, no leaving Bengaluru Urban District without permission; violation entitles prosecution to seek cancellation); Office directed to return trial court records for passing modified conviction warrant.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8187 CRL.A No. 279 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.279 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED NESLIN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O ABDUL SUDHIR R/AT NO. 02, 3^RD FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS MUNESHWAR NAGAR UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI BANGALORE 560 068 PERMANENT RESIDENTOF KUJIKANDATTILLA HOUSE CHULUR VILLAGE KONDANGULLUR TALUK KERALA 673601

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION REPRSENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001

AKSHAY KUMAR AGED 28 YEARS S/O AMIT KUMAR R/A NO.66, 6^TH CROSS, RHCR LAYUOT ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8187 CRL.A No. 279 of 2025

NAAGARABHAAVI BDA COMPLEX BANGALORE 560 091

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KUMAR R. D., ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.01.2025 IN SPL. C.C.No.2226/2023 IN CR. No.157/2023 OF SUDDAGUNTE PALYA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 324,326 OF IPC, U/S 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and Sri. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

The appeal is by the accused under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act' for brevity).

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8187 CRL.A No. 279 of 2025

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. In respect of an incident said to have occurred on 20.06.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., a complaint came to be lodged in Crime No.157/2023 by Suddaguntepalya Police Station.

Initially the offence alleged against the appellant was under Section 324 of IPC. However, during the course of investigation, the investigating officer was able to collect some materials which would attract the offence under Section 326 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

3.2. Having enlarged the appellant on bail by the police themselves when the offence alleged against the appellant was under Section 324 of IPC, the appellant came to be re-arrested by the police and sent to judicial custody after invoking Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 326 of IPC.

Learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and vehemently opposed the appeal.

The learned Trial Judge failed to note the said aspect of the matter, inasmuch as, when once the police

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8187 CRL.A No. 279 of 2025

themselves have enlarged the appellant on bail, the appellant could not have been re-arrested. Nevertheless, the learned Trial Judge was required to issue summons to secure the presence of the appellant. But Trial Judge has directly issued warrant and pursuant to the warrant, appellant came to be arrested.

Taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the appellant in judicial custody is no longer warranted. More so, having regard to the fact that the charge sheet is filed and investigation is concluded.

The other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed .

ii) The appellant is enlarged on bail by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, of which one is a local surety, for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:8187 CRL.A No. 279 of 2025

iii) The appellant shall not hamper the prosecution witnesses.

iv) The appellant shall attend the Court regularly.

v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru Urban District, without prior permission of the trial court.

vi) Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment, for passing the modified conviction warrant, forthwith.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

RD