- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20633 CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESH S/O. MUNISAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SMT. INDRAMMA W/O. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SRI. DEVAMMA S/O. MUNISAMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS ALL ARE R/A. NO.1 GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE UYYAMBALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 119 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KODIHALLI POLICE STATION KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 119 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. MUTHURAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20633 CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025 3. SMT. SHASIKALA W/O. VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. SMT. BAIRAMMA W/O. LATE. KRISHNAYYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SMT. SHIVARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. VIJI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 6. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O. LATE. MUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT. ALANATHA VILLAGE KODIHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 119 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, R2 TO 6 - SD) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PASSED IN CASE BEARING CRL.MISC.NO.322/2025, FILED BY THE APPELLANTS, AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THE KODIHALLI POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS, IN THE EVENT OF THE ARREST OF THE APPELLANTS, IN CRIME NO.39/2025, REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 75, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(W), 3(S)(VA) OF SC/ST(POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, BY GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20633 CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants -accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court seeking grant of 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 their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodihalli Police Station, pending before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 75, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Shivarathna. 2. Heard Sri V B Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP 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: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20633 CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025 “Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of 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. On the basis of first information lodged by respondent No.5, Crime No.39 of 2025 came to be registered for the above said offences against accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the appellants herein. It is the contention of the appellants that appellant No.2 had filed a criminal case against the respondents alleging commission of similar offences, which was registered in Crime No.38 of 2025. According to the appellants, as a counter blast, the present complaint came to be filed making similar allegations and also invoking the provisions of special enactment only to see that the appellants are apprehended and detained in custody. 5. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are already granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.38 of 2025. When similar - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20633 CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025 allegations are made in the case and counter case and in the case that was registered at the first instance, the respondents are already granted anticipatory bail, I do not find any reason to reject the prayer made by the appellants. 6. It is not the contention of learned Additional SPP that the appellants are required for custodial interrogation. The appellants are not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellants 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. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2025 of Kodihalli Police Station, pending before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20633 CRL.A No. 1034 of 2025 The appellants are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The appellants 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; b. The appellants shall not commit similar offences; c. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The appellants shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the appellants, 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 *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44