Sri M. Sathish, Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI M. SATHISH S/O. H.C. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O. NO.13, MAGADI MAIN ROAD OPP. GOVERNMENT SCHOOL G. HOSAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 091 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA R., SR.COUNSEL A/W SRI. NARASIMHARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION KENGERI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N. S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY V. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O. NO.7, 'KOUSTHUBA' G. HOSAHALI, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI.ABHISHEK HUDDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.26/2025 DATED 04.02.2025 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT, IF THE

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:31802 CRL.A No. 518 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

RESPONDENT POLICE ARREST THE APPELLANT IN CRIME NO.826/2024 DATED 27.12.2024 FOR AN OFFENCE P/US/ 108, 3(5), 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(2)(v),3(2)(va),3(1)(g),3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 BY GRANTING AN ANTICIPATORY BAIL.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 being aggrieved by the rejection of bail passed by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.26/2025 dated 04.02.2025 and seeking to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.826/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and under Sections 3(1))(r), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶25

Factual matrix of the case:

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the appellant, stating that the father of respondent No.2 has sold the property to

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31802 CRL.A No. 518 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the appellant under the registered sale deed in respect of the land bearing Sy.no.106/7 situated at Herohalli Village. Even after purchasing the property under the registered sale deed, the appellant did not pay the amount as required to pay under the said sale deed. Such being the fact, the father of respondent No.2 had insisted the appellant to pay the amount which was required to be paid under the said sale deed and the appellant is stated to have scolded the father of respondent No.2 by naming the caste of the deceased Narasimha Murthy and also threatened him with dire consequences. The other two persons have also harassing the deceased Narasimha Murthy on one or the other pretext in connection with the said land. Being frustrated by the act of the appellant and others, the father of respondent No.2 committed suicide by leaving a death note. Hence, he lodges a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.826/2024. The appellant approached the Trial Court seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:31802 CRL.A No. 518 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

aforesaid offences. The Trial Court rejected the bail petition.

¶34

Heard Sri.Subramanya.R, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Pushpalatha.B, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri.Abhishek Huddar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶35

It is the submission of learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant has obtained the sale deed from the deceased Narasimha Murthy and others on 13.04.2017. However, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant on 29.04.2024 before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (for short ‘DCRE’) seeking for action against the appellant in respect of sale of sites. The alleged incident of harassment is stated to have taken place on 26.12.2024 at about 10.30 p.m. On the following day, i.e., on 27.12.2024 at about 7.25 a.m., the deceased said to have committed suicide. Therefore, on the same day around 1.00 p.m., a complaint came to be registered by respondent No.2 against the appellant and others.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:31802 CRL.A No. 518 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is further submitted that if at all the amount was not paid to the deceased Narasimha Murthy for having sold the property to the appellant, the recourse would be that the appellant should have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed for not obtaining the sale consideration. Instead, he kept quiet for a longer period and lodges a complaint before the DCRE regarding not having paid the sale consideration, would indicate that, they are taking advantage of the caste and harassing the appellant by one or the other pretext.

¶40

It is further submitted that even though the appellant has not committed any offences, he has been falsely implicated in this case in order to knock off the property again. Though, the deceased had committed suicide for some other reason, the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint in order to coerce them to settle the property with the respondent No.2. Hence, the appellant filed this petition seeking for anticipatory bail and further undertakes to co-operate with the investigation, in case, if he is enlarged on bail. Making such submissions, the

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31802 CRL.A No. 518 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶44

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State vehemently submitted that there is a bar under Section 18-A of the SC /ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Therefore, the application for granting anticipatory bail has to be rejected.

¶45

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and he prays to reject in granting anticipatory bail.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it is stated in the complaint that the appellant had purchased the property on 13.04.2017 for valuable consideration from Narasimha Murthy. The allegation that the appellant had not paid the entire sale consideration which is made before the DCRE on 29.04.2024. However, no case has been registered against the said Narasimha Murthy for not having paid

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:31802 CRL.A No. 518 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the sale consideration before the appropriate Civil Court, either for cancellation of the sale deed or any other alternative method to nullify the said sale deed.

¶51

Having considered the facts and circumstances and overtact of the appellant, it is appropriate to grant him anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶52

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶55

ii) The order dated 04.02.2025 passed in Crl.Misc. No.26/2025 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶56

iii) The appellant / accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.826/2024 of respondent-police for the offences stated supra, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to

¶57