- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19930 CRL.A No. 1102 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1102 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SRI GANGARAJU S.K. S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4013 7TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRINAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT.MADHU W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANTE KANIVE VILLAGE, M.C.HALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228 …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, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3721/2025 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) U/S 483 OF BNSS AND FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(2)(V) SC/ST ACT, 1989 AND 109(1), 118(1) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF BNS ACT AND ENLARGE Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19930 CRL.A No. 1102 of 2025 HIM ON BAIL FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 3(2)(V) SC/ST ACT, 1989 AND 109(1), 118(1) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF BNS ACT OF SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.62/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989. 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 - sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) in Crime No.62/2025 of Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Smt.Madhu. 2. Heard Sri. B Ravindra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19930 CRL.A No. 1102 of 2025 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 bail under Section 14A(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 informant - Smt. Madhu, lodged the first information against the appellant alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. It is stated that the son of the informant was working under the accused and he alleged that the son of the complainant had stolen about Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. The son had admitted that he had stolen Rs.50,000/-. The informant promised to repay Rs.60,000/- to the appellant and taken her son with her. This incident had occurred on 01.02.2025. Later, it is stated that the son of the informant had high fever and headache. When he was taken to the hospital, it was found that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19930 CRL.A No. 1102 of 2025 he had sustained injuries on his head. It is stated that he was admitted to the hospital and was later discharged. The copy of the discharge summary issued by Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences is produced for perusal of the Court. 5. The first information came to be filed on 26.04.2025, i.e., after lapse of more than 2 and half months and he was arrested on that day itself. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, detention of the appellant in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be granted 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: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.62/2025 of Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19930 CRL.A No. 1102 of 2025 obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences. b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27