- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NATARAJU H.S, S/O SRI. N. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO. 120, 7TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, DEVANATHCHAR STREET, NEAR ADHARSHA COLLEGE, VENKATARAMANAGAR, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. 2. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR B.M, W/O SRI MADEVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1061, 8TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, BSK I STAGE, BENGALURU -560 050. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050, DULY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. ANNAPPA K.R, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O CHANDRODAYA THEATRE, VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.R. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THE APPEAL SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.10632/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) REJECTING THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL PETITION MADE THE APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 U/S.482 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING BAIL TO PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.290/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 351(2), 351(3) OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s), OF SC/ST ACT 1989 ON THE COMPLIANT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND CONSEQUENTLY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manjunath for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel Sri. B.R. Sreevatsa for the defacto complainant. 2. Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act hereinafter referred to as 'SC ST Act'. 3. Appeal is filed with the following prayers: A. Call for the records of Crl.Misc. No 10632/2024 disposed on the file of Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-71) B. Allow the appeal Set aside order dated 6/12/2024 in Crl.Misc No 10632/2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) rejecting the anticipatory bail petition made the Appellant No 1&2 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 petitioners in the Crime No 290/2024 registered by the respondent No 1 for the offence punishable under Section 351(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (1) (r), (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 on the complaint made by the respondent No 2 against the petitioners and consequently, C. Grant the anticipatory bail to appellant No.1&2 in the Crime No 290 / 2024 registered by the respondent No 1 for the offence punishable under Section 351(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (1) (r), (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 on the complaint made by the respondent No 2 on the file of Hon'ble Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71). D. Pass/grant such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass/grant in the interest of justice. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the case are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by the 2nd respondent on 17.11.2024 contending that he is working under Sri. Vasudevarao Rao as Canteen Assistant in many cinema theatres. While so discharging his duty on 16.11.2024 at - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 about 4.30 p.m., when he was sitting at balcony at a cinema theatre, accused No.2 who was working in booking counter, came there and abused him in a filthy language taking out his caste name so as to degrade him. Same was reported to the Contractor. At that time, son of said Sri. Vasudeva Rao by name Suhas intervened and questioned accused No.2 as to why he is scolding the complainant, as he is employee under him and accused No.2 has no business whatsoever to scold his employee. At that juncture, said Suhas (son of Sri. Vasudeva Rao) was also abused by accused No.2. The incident was reported to the police and a complaint came to be lodged in Crime No.290/2024 with Hanumanthapura Police Station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), (s) of SC/ST Act and Section 351(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5. After registering the case, Police have investigated the matter. In the meantime, the appellant sought for grant of anticipatory bail and the learned Trial - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 Judge rejected the same primarily on the ground that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is the bar. Thereafter the appellants are before this Court. 6. The learned counsel Sri. Manjunath for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contending that on overall reading of the entire complaint averments, it is crystal clear that there was no degrading of the complainant in the public view which is a sine qua non for attracting the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/ST Act, so as to consider the embargo under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. In the case on hand, such ingredients are not found in the complaint itself and other materials placed before the Court and therefore, this Court may consider the request of grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and the counsel for the 2nd respondent opposed the bail grounds with vehemence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 8. They would further contend that whether at all there was an abuse by taking out the caste name hurled on the complainant in the public view or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court bestowed its' best attention to the material on record. On bear reading of complaint averments itself, it is clear that when the incident has taken place, except the complainant and the accused, there were no other persons so as to find out the prima facie materials to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC ST Act. The other offences alleged against the accused are simple enough so as to deny the grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that the investigation is also crippled, to a considerable extent for want of presence of the appellants, if the appellants are directed to join the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 investigation and limited custodial interrogation if ordered, ends of justice would be met. 11. In the absence of prima facie materials, bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would not be applicable to the case on hands. 12. Accordingly, following order: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Appellants are directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigation Officer on 24.02.2025 at 10.00 a.m., (iii) Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the appellants to the custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day before 3.00 P.M. and thereafter enlarge the appellants on bail by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7018 CRL.A No. 2334 of 2024 (iv) Appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (v) Appellants shall appear before the Investigation Officer or learned Trial Judge as and when directed. (vi) Appellants shall mark their attendance every 3rd Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 2.00 P.M till the final report is filed. (vii) Appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bangalore District without prior permission. (viii) Violation of any one of the conditions would entitled to prosecution or the 2nd respondent to move for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK