- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3043 CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2398 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SAMEER S/O HAKEEKULLA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO 56, NEAR BUSSTAND, ANJANAPURA POST, SHIKARIPURA TQ, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN :577201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI H MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE THROUGH THE HOSAMANE POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI SUB-DVN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE)- 01 2. SMT HANUMANTHAPPA W/O LATE JAYARAMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR 11TH CROSS, HOSAMANE, BADRAVATHI TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN : 577245 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI NAGENDRA B, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3043 CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024 THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT, BY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2024 IN SPL.C.NO.5030/2024 OF IV ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CR.NO.128/2024 OF HOSAMANE P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 87, 308(2), 3(5) THE SC AND ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, U/S 3(1)(r)s, 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), (IPC U/S 376, 506). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri H. Malatesh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri Nagendra B., learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. Appellant is seeking for grant of bail in respect of Spl.C.No.5030/2024, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathii. 3. Accused is alleged with the offences punishable under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (b) (va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3043 CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024 4. Gist of the allegations found in the complaint is that on 30.08.2024 at about 9.30 p.m., complainant lodged the compliant contending that at about 8.30 p.m., on the same day when the complainant was with her granddaughter, somebody knocked the door and at that juncture, two boys were found and she informed the complainant that they are acquainted with her and their names are Sameer and Rahid. Complainant asked her as to why they have come and at that juncture, Sameer said to have shown the granddaughter of the complainant that he is intending to marry her. At that juncture, there was an oral altercation. When the offer made by Sameer was refused, it is contended that Sameer is said to have used abusive words taking out the caste name of the complainant and told her that nobody else would marry her. At that juncture, other person viz., Rahid started the scooter and Sameer forcefully kidnapped the granddaughter of the complainant. 5. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. 6. Request made by the appellant for grant of bail was turned down by the learned Special Judge and thereafter appellant is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3043 CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024 7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal contended that now that the charge sheet is filed and the victim is brought back to the complainant and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the accused in judicial custody and sought for grant of bail. 8. Per contra, counsel for second respondent/complainant submits that he has no objection to allow the bail application based on the instructions given by the second respondent. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes that if the accused is let on bail, there would be hindrance to the true course of justice and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, taking note of the gravity of the offence that has been leveled against the accused and taking note of the fact that second respondent has no objection to grant the bail, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted. 11. Further, the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3043 CRL.A No. 2398 of 2024 Accordingly, following: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) Appellant/accused is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees one lakhs only] with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge. (iii) Appellant/accused shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iv) Appellant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of Shivamogga District without prior permission. (v) Appellant shall attend the court regularly. Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45