- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. PREETHAM S/O SELVA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.183, WARD NO.2 KALYANANAGAR, JYOTHINAGARA POST CHIKMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN: 577 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH THE WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHIKMAGALURU, AND CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT. PIN: 577 101. 2. SMT. SWATHI W/O RAKESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ASHRAYA BADAVANE KALYAN NAGAR, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK. PIN: 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ANAGHA N. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.105/2024 OF CHIKMAGALURU WOMENS POLICE, PENDING IN SPL.C.NO.2/2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 76, 115(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 OF BNS, UNDER SECTION 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, AMENDMENT ACT, 2015. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that at the first instance, the police invoked the offence under Sections 76, 115(2), 329(4), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, wherein an allegation was made that this appellant assaulted and caused burnt injury on the victim on her chest and also caused life threat which was witnessed by neighbourers. Hence, case was registered for the above offences and the appellant approached II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru and sought for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 an order of anticipatory bail for the above offences and the said Court granted the anticipatory bail subject to the appellant executing bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety within 15 days from the date of this order without fail and also shall mark his attendance once in a month before the Investigating Officer till filing of the final report. 3. Now, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that police have filed the charge-sheet subsequently adding special enactment i.e., the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Hence, he could not appear before the police and sought anticipatory bail and the Trial Court rejected the same in coming to the conclusion that earlier order was not complied with and there was violation. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that there is an improvement in the case of the prosecution as regards abusing by taking caste name and the same was not found in the earlier complaint and only in the statement dated 11.11.2024, the same is inserted, apart from the earlier allegation made in the complaint. Hence, he is entitled for regular bail, since special enactment is invoked. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to notice of this Court reasoning given by the District Court in paragraph No.17 with regard to violation and non- compliance of earlier anticipatory bail and contend that the appellant again cannot seek for the relief of anticipatory bail. She would vehemently contend that even this appellant is a habitual offender and earlier also, he committed the offence against a child and POCSO Act was invoked and he was sentenced for a period of 7 years and again, he is repeatedly doing the very same act and subjected the complainant for harassment, assaulted her and caused life threat. Hence, he is not entitled for bail. 5. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though an allegation is made in the complaint that he burnt her through cigarette on chest, the wound certificate which is placed on record does not disclose anything about burnt injury and its only a superficial abrasion about 0.5 x 0.5 cms. over upper part of left side of chest below midclavicular line and hence, very allegation made in the complaint is false and also further statement was recorded only during the course of investigation with an intention to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 overcome the order passed by the District Court granting anticipatory bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on perusal of the FIR, at the first instance, offences under Sections 76, 115(2), 329(4), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 was invoked and it is also not in dispute that earlier anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the appellant on 13.11.2024. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to notice of this Court statement of witnesses recorded on 11.11.2024 before granting anticipatory bail. Having perused the statement, it discloses that apart from earlier averment of complaint, a paragraph was added invoking the offences of the Special Enactment. Having taken note of the said improvement in the case of the prosecution, the petitioner approached this Court for the relief of anticipatory bail since the offences of Special Enactment was invoked while filing the charge-sheet. Though the Trial Court made an observation that he has not complied with the conditions of the anticipatory bail granted by the District court, the fact is that subsequently, after granting - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 the anticipatory bail on 13.11.2024, while filing the charge- sheet, invoked the offences punishable under Special Enactment. When such further statement was recorded on 11.11.2024, the offences were invoked subsequent to the granting of anticipatory bail in respect of BNS not in respect of Special Enactment. Hence, it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail in view of invoking of offences punishable under Special Enactment since, an improvement is made in the further statement with regard to the Special Enactment is concerned. The very apprehension of respondent No.2 is that inspite of this appellant was earlier convicted and undergone sentence for a period of seven years, repeatedly continuing the said act. The said act will be prevented by imposing conditions in order to safe guard the interest of the prosecution. Having taken note of registration of earlier case under the provisions of BNS and after improvement in the further statement, the provisions of Special Enactment was invoked, hence, it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail and bar under Section 18A of Special Enactment will not come in the way in granting the anticipatory bail. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 it is very clear that if the complaint does not discloses any ingredients of the offence under the Special Enactment, the Court can exercise its discretion. Hence, anticipatory bail application is maintainable in view of adding of the provisions of Special Enactment subsequently, while filing of charge-sheet and though he got an order of anticipatory bail earlier for the BNS offences. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the appellant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.105/2024 registered by Chikmagaluru Womens Police Station, Chikkamagaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 76, 115(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and under 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15752 CRL.A No. 368 of 2025 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court since charge- sheet has been filed against this appellant. (ii) The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in similar act in future. Liberty is given to the State to seek for cancellation of bail in case, the appellant indulged in the similar act in future. (iv) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 a