- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100267 OF 2025 (U/S.14 A(2) Of SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. H. NAGARAJ S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. 3RD WARD MALAPANAGUDI, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583239. 2. DEVARAJ MAJJIGI S/O. HANAMANTAPPA MAJJIGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GABBUR VILLAGE, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL-583228. 3. MALLIKARJUN S/O. NINGAPPA MAJJIGI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GABBUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. 4. KRISHNA MAJIGI S/O. YALLAPPA MAJGI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GABBUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. 5. SHREEKANT S/O. SANNEPPA MAJGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. GABBUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. 6. SACHIN KUMAR S/O. RAMANNA MAJGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 R/O. GABBUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ITS P.S.I. MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. LALITA W/O. BASAVARAJ MAJJIGI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. GABBUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI SHIVA SHIRUR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 07/04/2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.104/2025 PASSED BY COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT. KOPPAL AND ALLOW APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC AND ST (PoA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS HEREIN/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 RESPECTIVELY ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.51/2025 OF MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 118(1), 115(2), 133, 329(4), 74, 352, 351(2), 190 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)2(va) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, IN THE EVENT OF ARREST AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Shiva Shirur learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC & ST (PoA) Act” for short), praying to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in Crime No.51/2025 of Munirabad Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 118(1), 115(2), 133, 329(4), 74, 352, 351(2), 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS” for short) and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(2)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 06.03.2025, the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint to respondent No.1 – Police Station - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 alleging that her daughter-in-law living separately from her family with her husband who was her son Basavaraj, interfered and stopped the marriage of her daughter Fakkirawwa and on 06.12.2024 at 9:00 a.m., when the first informant was in her house, the accused persons came to the house of the first informant and took quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language, in public place, wrongfully restrained her and pulled her. In this regard the relatives of the first informant advised the accused persons. Thereafter the husband of first informant by name Basavaraj died in a road traffic accident. During this time, the first informant and accused persons attended for cremation ceremony of deceased Basavazraj, the accused persons again took quarrel with the first informant for not grant of share in the family properties. Thus the accused persons have made criminal intimidation, to eliminate the first informant. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. 4. The Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are innocent and they have not committed any offences. They are falsely implicated in the crime. The first informant - injured has sustained only simple injuries. The appellants are only bread earners of their respective families and they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there are prima facie materials against the accused persons. Further, anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 18-A of SC & ST (PoA) Act. If they are released on bail, they may threaten the first informant and would hamper the trial. Thus, prayed for rejection of bail. 7. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that, on 06.12.2024 the accused persons took quarrel with the first informant, wrongly restrained her to proceed to further and voluntarily caused hurt and thereafter when the first informant participated in the cremation ceremony of her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 husband Basavaraj, again the accused persons took quarrel, intentionally insulted and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Admittedly, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 8. Now the investigation is completed. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. As per the wound certificate the first informant sustained only simple injuries. Hence, the appellants are entitled for bail. 9. Insofar as maintainability of anticipatory bail petition is concerned, in the case of Prathvi Raj Chawan Vs. Union Of India and others1, the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified the directions issued in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another2, at paragraph No.79.3 to 79.5 and decided the scope and bar under Section 18-A of SC & ST (PoA) Act, to grant anticipatory bail, wherein it is observed that, if prima facie case is not made out, then anticipatory bail petition can be considered. 1 2020 (4) SCC 727 2 (2018) 6 SCC454 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7466 CRL.A No. 100267 of 2025 10. In view of the ratio laid down in Prathvi Raj Chawan’s case and facts and circumstances of the present case, the present appeal is maintainable. Hence, the Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal appeal is allowed. The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail on they execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ SHO subject to following conditions. (i) The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and shall not threaten the complainant. (ii) The appellants shall appear before the Court regularly without fail. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15