- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100292 OF 2025 (U/S.14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. BASALINGAYYA S/O. KUMARSWAMY LAXMESHWARAMATH, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O. KALLIHAL-581110, HAVERI TALUKA AND DISTRICT. 2. NAVEEN S/O. KARIYAPPA KATAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O. HAVERI-581110, HAVERI TALUKA AND DISTRICT. 3. RAMANNA S/O. DUNDAPPA KARIDYAMANNAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PEON, R/O. NELOGAL-581110, HAVERI TALUKA AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI V. M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 R/BY. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O. JAYAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O. NELOGAL, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, TQ. HAVERI. DISTRICT. HAVERI, PIN CODE-581110. 3. JAYAPPA S/O. LUMBEPPA LAMANI, AT: NELOGAL TANDA, TQ: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALAWAI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRL.MIS NO.274/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.115(2), 118(1), 109, 76, 352 AND 351(2) R/W. SECTION 3(5) OF BNS 2023, SECTION 3(1)(r) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, IN HAVERI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.70/2025, AND RELEASE THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ON ANTICIPATORY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.Kirthi Lata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Vidyashankar G.Dalawai, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 14-A(2) of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (POA) Act r/w Section 482 of BNSS-2023, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Crl. Misc. No.274/2025 dated 29.04.2025, wherein, the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge rejected the petition of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 76, 352 and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS-2023, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 On 11.04.2025 at about 11 a.m., when the first informant was standing in front of Gram Panchayath, Nelogal, accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention took quarrel with husband of first informant by name Jayappa, assaulted him with hands, accused No.1 assaulted him with iron rod on his head and accused No.2 also assaulted with stone on the head of the husband of the first informant and the accused pulled the saree of the first informant and thereby outraged her modesty. Further, all the accused persons intentionally insulted the first informant and her husband to provoke their breach of peace and also by taking their caste and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate them. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint, which led to registration of FIR and investigation. Apprehending the arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police, the accused persons filed anticipatory bail before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. However, the same was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, accused Nos.1 to 3 filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are law abiding citizens, accused No.1 is the Class-I contractor, accused No.2 is the Executive Engineer and accused No.3 is working as peon in the Panchayath office. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is professional rivalry between the husband of the first informant and accused No.1, who is the Class-I contractor in the same locality. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are public servants. The accused have been falsely implicated in the case and they are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Further, the injured Jayappa has already been discharged from the Hospital and as per the wound certificate, he sustained only simple injuries and therefore, there is no threat to his life and hence, prayed to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1- State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant vehemently contended that the appellants are involved in heinous offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and they assaulted the victim with iron rod and stone and thereby caused head injury. There is a prima facie case against the appellants and therefore, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the appellants is not maintainable under Section 18-A of SC/ST(POA) Act, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Prathviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others1 and Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another2. If the appellants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is likelihood of tampering the prosecution witnesses and also hampering the trial. On all these grounds, he prayed to reject the appeal. 1 2020(4) SCC 727 2 (2018) 6 SCC 454 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 6. Perused the material available on record. It appears that the incident took place in respect of execution of work within the limits of Nelogal Panchayath to construct the supporting wall to the canal. On 11.04.2025, when the injured Jayappa was quarreling with the accused persons, the first informant rushed to the scene of offence and pacified the quarrel. In turn, all the accused persons, outraged her modesty by pulling her saree. Further, accused No.1 assaulted the husband of first informant with iron rod on his head. Accused No.2 also assaulted the first informant’s husband Jayappa with stone on his head. Further, all the accused persons intentionally insulted the first informant and her husband by taking their caste in a public place and also made criminal intimidations to eliminate them. 7. Perused the wound certificate furnished by the learned HCGP. As per the wound certificate, injured Jayappa sustained two lacerations on head on the right side above forehead measuring in 4 cms. and above right - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 ear of 4 cms., and no fracture is seen. As per the opinion of the doctor, injuries sustained to Jayappa are simple in nature. As per the wound certificate, injured admitted to the hospital on 11.04.2025 and was discharged on 14.04.2025. It shows that there is no danger to the life of the injured. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the victim is discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger and therefore, Section 307 of IPC could not be attracted. 8. From the contents of the complaint, it appears that except the alleged assault made on the injured- Jayappa, the other allegations as to intentional insult and criminal intimidation are appears to be general and omnibus allegations. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant and learned HCGP contended that since, the prosecution is able to prove the prima facie case against the appellants, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 Prathviraj Chauhan, an anticipatory bail application under Section 18(A) of SC/ST(POA) Act is not maintainable. 10. Perused the ratio laid down in the case of Prathviraj Chauhan, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, if prima facie case is not made out, the Court can entertain the application under Section 18(A) of SC/ST POA Act. In the instant case, the injured Jayappa has already been discharged from the hospital and as per wound certificate, only simple injuries are seen and the alleged insult, criminal intimidation appears to be in the nature of general and omnibus allegations. At this juncture, the Court can allow the anticipatory bail application. In this case, custodial interrogation of appellants is also not at all required. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 11. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and in fact, victim-Jayappa - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 is discharged from the hospital and his life is out of danger, the appellants being Class-I contractor, Executive Engineer and employee working in Panchayath there presence can be easily secured by imposing suitable conditions. 12. Considering the nature of offences and circumstances of the case and the allegations leveled against the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellants are ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The criminal appeal is hereby allowed. ii. The order passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Have in Crl.Misc.No.274/2025 dated 29.04.2025 is hereby set aside. iii. The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 respondent – Police on they executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO. iv. The appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer/SHO within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v. The appellants shall mark their attendance on the first Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. for a period of six months or until the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. vi. The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. vii. The appellants shall not involve themselves in any such offences in future. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7736 CRL.A No. 100292 of 2025 Violation of any of the above conditions, will entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. (NOTE: The observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.) Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE HMB CT-AN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22