- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.341 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. SHASHANK SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 304, NARASIPURA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 097 …APPELLANT (BY SRI GOPI K J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURTS COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SMT. LALITHA W/O BHAKTHAVATSAL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RES. AT NO. 78/110 II MAIN, 6TH CROSS NARASIPURA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE-560 097 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 –COMPLAINANT - PRESENT) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.374/2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71) AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.9/2025, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 79, 351(2), 352 OF THE BNS ACT, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, OF VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in Crl.Mis. No.374/2025 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also the complainant/respondent No.2 who appeared in person. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant that on 08.01.2025 at around 3.00 p.m., at Narasipur Layout, 1st Phase, 2nd Main, the officials of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 BBMP initiated the work of clearing of an unauthorized encroachment against one Shashank. Hence, the said Shashank started galata with the BBMP officials and the complainant was witnessing the said incident. But accused abused the complainant in a filthy language in the presence of the public and also stated that she belongs to a lower caste and this galata taken on her instance and also threatened the complainant. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case in Cr.No.9/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 79, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance, 2014. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that this appeal is filed against the order of rejection of bail petition. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the complainant except making the allegation in the complaint that she belongs to lower caste, not having any intention to humiliate the complainant in the presence of the public but the Trial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 Court fails to take note of the said fact into consideration while rejecting the bail application and the offences are also not punishable of death or imprisonment of life. Hence, prayed this Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that in the complaint, a specific word is referred that the complainant belongs to a lower caste and subjected her for humiliation in the presence of general public when the work was undertaken by the officials of the BBMP while clearing the unauthorized encroachment. Hence, there is a sufficient material against the appellant and the matter requires investigation. Thus, it is not a case for granting anticipatory bail. The counsel also submits that there is a bar under Section 18A of the Special Enactment. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail. 6. The complainant who appeared in person also submits that the accused subjected her to humiliation in the presence of the general public and also abused her in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 a filthy language in the public stating that she is working as a maid. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also the complainant who appeared in person and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that in the complaint no such averment is made that the complainant is working as a maid but there is a reference that she belongs to the lower caste and doing the work in the street and they must be in the street, uneducated people and also caused threat. Having taken note of the averments made in the complaint, it discloses that except stating that she belongs to the lower caste, not found specific averment of abusing by taking her caste that too in the presence of general public with an intention to humiliate the complainant. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant granting anticipatory bail. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.9/2025 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 79, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The appellant shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14700 CRL.A No. 341 of 2025 the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The appellant shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN