- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22243 CRL.A No. 951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: RANJITH G.R., S/O. LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT: OMKAR EXTENSION, KUSHAL NAGAR, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LETHIF .B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY KUSHALNAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. VIDHYA G, D/O GANGADHAR K.G, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.1683, K BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU CITY - 570 022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SUMANTH ULLOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.138/2025 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22243 CRL.A No. 951 of 2025 SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU AT MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 69, 115(2), 351(2), 352 OF BNS AND SEC. 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(W), 3(2)(W) OF SC AND THE ST (POA) ACT, 1989 OF KUSHALNAGARA TOWN POLICE, KODAGU DISTRICT AND CONSEQUENTLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CR.NO.19/2025 OF KUSHALANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE. 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.1 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.19/2025 of Kushalnagar Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Vidya G. 2. Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Harish Ganapathy, learned HCGP for respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22243 CRL.A No. 951 of 2025 No.1-State and Sri. Sumanth Ullod, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 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. The appellant is arrayed as accused No.1. It is alleged that he had promised to marry the informant and committed sexual assault. The FIR came to be registered on 16.03.2025 for the offence that was committed from 01.01.2017 till 06.03.2025. It is the contention of the appellant that, initially a similar complaint was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 on 11.11.2024 and thereafter, the same was withdrawn unconditionally on 04.03.2025 as per the Endorsement issued by A.S.I of Somwarpet Sub-Division. It is stated that even after withdrawal of the earlier complaint, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22243 CRL.A No. 951 of 2025 victim had believed the words of the accused, and had gone with him and, as such the said offence was again committed on 06.03.2025 which can not be believed. It is to be noticed that, the victim is now aged 25 years, she is working as a Assistant Professor in the college whereas the accused is working as Police Constable. 5. Even though the provisions of special enactment are invoked and the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, on going through the first information, it is found that the allegations for committing the offence under Section SC/ST Act, is only against accused Nos.2 and 3, who are already granted anticipatory bail. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, 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. 6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22243 CRL.A No. 951 of 2025 ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.19/2025 of Kushalnagar Town Police Station. 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) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22243 CRL.A No. 951 of 2025 On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. 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.: 29