The State of Karnataka Vs Lakshmisha

…RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THIS APPEAL. B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1300/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED U/S 341, 504, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) AND 3(2)(VA) OF

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 611 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SC/ST (POA) ACT. C) DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The state has come up with an appeal seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent No.1/accused No.1 vide order dated 30.10.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1300/2021 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act').

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 R/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 611 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

No.2. The Trial Court while allowing Crl.Misc.No.1300/2021 passed an order on 30.10.2021 granting anticipatory bail and ordered to release respondent No.1 in case of his arrest, subject to conditions. Being aggrieved by the same, the prosecution is before this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶32

Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned Additional SPP, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶34

"Whether the anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent No.1 by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"

¶35

My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' and pass the following:

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:18492 CRL.A No. 611 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

REASONS

¶40

The only ground urged by the learned Additional SPP to allow the appeal is that serious allegations are made against respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and under the Provisions the Act. The victim belongs to scheduled caste and under such circumstances, the Trial Court could not have granted anticipatory bail in favour of respondent No.1.

¶41

The materials on record disclose that the date of offence is on 25.08.2021. Misc.No.1300/2021 was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2021 granting anticipatory bail. Immediately thereafter, respondent No.1 complied with the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail. It is not the contention of the appellant that respondent No.1 has violated any of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, even though serious allegations are made against respondent No.1, I do not find any grounds to allow the appeal for canceling anticipatory bail.

¶42