- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19434 CRL.A No. 865 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: ANIL S/O KENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUNDUR VILLAGE AND POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 132. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR N R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY ALDUR POLICE. CHIKMAGALUR DIST REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01 2. PRAMITHA, D/O MENASIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHOWDIGUDI, KUNDUR VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKMAGALUR TQ AND DIST. PIN - 577 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.25/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19434 CRL.A No. 865 of 2025 AND SPL. JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 352 AND 118(1) OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(S) AND 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 FURTHER PLEASED TO DIRECT THE 1ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2025 of Aldur Police Station, pending before the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Chikkmagaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Smt.Pramitha. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19434 CRL.A No. 865 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Ravikumar N.R., learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. It is the contention of the informant that accused Nos.1 and 2 have abused her in filthy language and assaulted with a reaper, as a result of which, she sustained injuries over her eyebrow, on the lips, teeth etc. Accused No.2 referring to her caste, abused her and committed the offences. 5. The incident said to have occurred on 02.03.2025 at 8.00 p.m. The wound certificate produced by the learned HCGP for perusal of the Court discloses that the injured had gone to the hospital and she was examined by the doctor on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19434 CRL.A No. 865 of 2025 03.03.2025 at 1.00 p.m. As per the wound certificate, she sustained one cut lacerated wound over her left eyebrow which is grievous in nature. It is stated that the injured was not admitted to the hospital as an inpatient but took treatment as out patient. It is thereafter, the first information was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 making similar allegation. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that accused No.1 against whom the informant had made similar allegations was granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court, as the maximum punishment that could be imposed is only upto 3 years. However, prayer made by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on the ground that he is not belonging either to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is nothing on record to justify invoking provisions of SC/ST Act. Admittedly, the appellant had never referred to her caste while committing the offences. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for custodial interrogation. The allegations made against the appellant is to be proved after full fledged trial. Even on parity - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19434 CRL.A No. 865 of 2025 the appellant is entitled for the relief. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2025 of Aldur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru. The appellant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The appellant shall furnish the bonds in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19434 CRL.A No. 865 of 2025 b. The appellant shall not commit similar offences; c. The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44