- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2434 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PRADEEP S/O. SHRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.202, MANITO MANSION, NO.10, 2ND CROSS, DINNURRU MAIN ROAD, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUND P.S., REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. ANAND S/O. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 401, COMMERCE HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED) *** Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.9515/2024 AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO APPELLANT BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN SPL.C.C.NO.664/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.229/2023 OF HIGH GROUNDS POLICE FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Though this matter is posted for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Sri. Afroz Pasha, learned counsel for appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. The second respondent is served - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 with the notice of the appeal, but has remained absent and un-represented. 3. The present appeal is filed by the appellant, seeking anticipatory bail and questioning the validity of the rejection of such a request by the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), in Crl.Misc.No.9515/2024, on 30.10.2024. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 4.1. The complainant - Anand is said to be working in the Office of one Komal Kumar. The appellant being the son of the first accused, said to have entered the Office of Komal Kumar on 02.07.2023 and picked up the quarrel and assaulted Komal Kumar. When the complainant tried to pacify the same, they also assaulted said Anand also. In that regard, he filed a complaint with the High Grounds Police Station, stating that the appellant and his mother are to be secured to the Police Station and to be advised not to indulge in such activities in future. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 4.2. Based on such complaint, Police registered a non-cognizible offence and issued notice to the complainant to appear before the Police Station for the purpose of enquiry. The complainant is said to have ignored the said notice issued by the High Grounds Police Station and therefore, the Police closed the case. 4.3. Later on, again, the complainant approached the Police on 06.10.2023 and lodged one more complaint, reiterating the incident that has occurred on 02.07.2023, with some more allegations stating that, when he tried to pacify the quarrel, wherein the appellant and his mother had assaulted one Sri.Komal Kumar, who is the employer of the complainant, the present appellant and his mother abused the complainant, taking out his caste name and then tried to assault him also. 4.4. Based on the said complaint lodged on 06.10.2023, the High Grounds Police registered a case in Crime No.229/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "SC/ST (POA) Act") read with Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the Police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet showing the accused Nos.1 and 2 as the absconding accused. 5. Post charge sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance and issued Non-bailable Warrants to the appellant and his mother. The first accused being the mother of the appellant was arrested and produced before the Special Judge, who has been now granted the bail. But anticipatory bail request of appellant is rejected. But anticipatory bail request of appellant is rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, vehemently contended that, in respect of the incident that occurred on 02.07.2023, there are two complaints which is impermissible in law and in the second complaint, in order to aggravate the situation, the second respondent (complainant) has falsely - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 narrated that the appellant and his mother have taken out his caste name and abused him. 6.1. He further pointed out that, if that were to be so, there was no impediment for the second respondent to have included those allegations in the first complaint itself which came to be lodged soon after the incident on 02.07.2023. 7. The learned counsel also pointed out that as per the first complaint, the incident is said to have occurred in the afternoon and in the said complaint, there is no time mentioned and the said complaint itself came to be lodged at about 3:15 p.m., only with an intention to lodge the second complaint, in the case on hand, a second complaint which is registered on 06.10.2023, the time is shown as 8:30 p.m. 8. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the second complaint is a motivated complaint only with an intention to harass the appellant and his mother and sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 9. He further pointed out that three months' delay in lodging the complaint is not even explained in the FIR properly and delay shown in column No.3(c) for the delayed complaint is that the complainant, after discussing it with his family members, had lodged the complaint three months later. 10. He further pointed out that, the very fact that the delayed complaint has been lodged with the allegations of abusing the complainant by taking out his caste name, shows the hollowness in the complaint averments which would not deter this Court from granting the anticipatory bail, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(POA) Act and thus order for grant of anticipatory bail. 11. Per contra, Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State supports the impugned order and contends that, prima facie material in the form of complaint itself would be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 sufficient enough to invoke the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(POA) Act and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. Admittedly, as per the earlier non-cognizable report recorded by the very same Police, on 02.07.2023, there was no allegation of taking out the caste name and abusing the complainant. On 06.10.2023, again, a complaint came to be lodged in respect of the very same incident, of course, with a modified time. 13. In the first complaint, there is no allegation that because of the assault made by the appellant and his mother, the complainant had lost his consciousness. In fact, he visited the Police Station at about 3:25 p.m. and lodged a written complaint. Had it been so, the theory that he was hospitalised and he lost his consciousness and therefore he could not lodge the complaint on the very same day, invoking the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and later on, he discussed with his family members and lodged - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 the complaint against the appellant and his mother on 06.10.2023, prima facie, cannot be countenanced in law. Long delay of three months is not properly explained, which is a matter which would be of sufficient significance while entertaining the request of the appellant. 14. Even the other allegations made in the complaint are simple in nature and if none else were present, when the complainant and his boss, who are said to have been assaulted by the appellant and his mother, and lost his consciousness, the so-called abuse would also be not in public view. 15. Anyway, the said matter is to be adjudicated before the Trial Court after proper trial. Expressing any further opinion, at this stage, would definitely hamper the rights of the parties in the pending trial. Thus, desisting from holding a mini-trial that the material on record is considered for the purpose of invoking bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST(POA)Act, this Court is convinced that the bar under Section 18 would not be applicable in the facts - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 and circumstances of the case, more so, having regard to the bald complaint and in the first complaint there is no mention of abusive words so as to attract Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable conditions. Grant of regular bail to the mother of the appellant is a relevant factor while considering the request of the appellant. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed: ii) The appellant is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 10.02.2025 at 10:00 a.m. iii) The Investigating officer is at liberty to take him into custody and complete the exterior investigation, if any, on the same day before 5:00 p.m. and thereafter enlarge the appellant on bail - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3948 CRL.A No. 2434 of 2024 on taking a bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum. iv) The appellant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer. v) The appellant shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. vi) The appellant shall attend the Court regularly. vii) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Urban District, without prior permission. Violation of any one of the above conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SNN