- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.384 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR ANTHONY PATRICK S/O. MR. ANTHONY CRUZ, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 3RD CROSS, OD BLOCK, SUBASH NAGAR, MYSURU-57001 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH METAGALLI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BLDG, BENGALURU-560001 2. SMT. RADHA H W/O. SRI HANUMANTHU K AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.276, RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, BELAVATHA VILLAGE, RBI POST, MYSURU-57001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.93/2025 (CR.NO.138/2024) AND THEREBY GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.138/2024 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT AND FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 103(1), 351(2), 49, 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MYSURU CITY MYSURU 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 30.01.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2025 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution that based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 22.12.2024, the police have invoked the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act and for offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(2), 49, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and case has been registered, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet as well as in the complaint, this appellant is not the accused. However, the the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C permission was taken to file further charge-sheet in the matter. The the learned High Court Government Pleader also would vehemently contend that there is an agreement between this appellant and land owners. Apart from that on the date of the incident i.e., on 05.11.2024, the allegation is made that this appellant also came in his vehicle bearing No.KA55-M-8666 and hence, the Investigating Officer is intend to investigate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 further in the matter in view of the permission sought before the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that inspite of this Court directed in the previous occasion when the State made the submission that another accused has been arrayed as accused No.9 and this appellant is not arrayed as an accused, an order was passed not to precipitate in the matter but inspite of the same, ACP along with two Constables, went near the house of this appellant and on production of the order passed by this Court only, ACP and Constables came back. Hence, there is an apprehension of arrest on the guise of seeking permission under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently contend that Investigating Officer is present before the Court and he submits that they have not visited the house of the appellant subsequent to passing of such order, however, reiterates - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 that this appellant has given his vehicle at the time of complaint and there was an agreement with the original owners and this appellant and in connection with the said circumstances only they made an attempt to enquire this appellant. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also would vehemently contend that in the earlier date of incident i.e., on 05.11.2024, there was a reference that this appellant came along with other assailants in the car and car details are also given and car belongs to this appellant and specific allegations are made that they have attributed the words in the presence of public taking their caste name and hence, there are materials against this appellant also. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that when the case was registered consequent upon the incident dated 22.11.2024, a murder was taken place and hence, with regard to the earlier - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 incident is concerned i.e., dated 05.11.2024, the persons who were their in that incident also arrayed as accused persons and this appellant’s name was not found in the FIR as well as in the charge-sheet. The learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently contend that permission was sought under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for further investigation. When such permission was taken and also when the document of agreement was entered with the original owners and this appellant was a party to the said agreement, apart from that when the car also shown in the complaint and no doubt, that is with regard to the earlier incident is concerned i.e., on 05.11.2024 but, no complaint was given and only in the subsequent incident, the said earlier incident was taken note of and some of them have been arrayed as accused persons and one more Anthony Alexander @ Anthony @ Papu S/o John Peter is arrayed as accused No.9 and this appellant name is Anthony Patrick S/o Anthony Cruz and in the earlier occasion also the learned counsel for the State made the submission that this appellant was not an accused but - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 having taken note of the subsequent development, the learned counsel for the State brought to notice of this Court there is an agreement with the original owners and also car number of this appellant also mentioned in the reference of earlier incident dated 05.11.2024. When such material is available on record, there is an apprehension of arrest since the learned counsel for the appellant submits that even inspite of the order of this Court, police have visited the house of the appellant and the said submission was denied by the Investigating Officer who is present before the Court. Having taken note of reference of car number of this appellant as well as the agreement which was found during the course of investigation, there is an apprehension of arrest of this appellant as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, it is a fit case to exercise discretion by this Court. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 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.138/2024 registered by Metagalli Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 2015 and for offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(2), 49, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) 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. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12545 CRL.A No. 384 of 2025 (iii) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case. (iv) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for in view of permission sought under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN