- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2212 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PAVITRA B.N., W/O C.G. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.419, TANK ROAD, VANNIGARAPETE, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN - 561 203. 2. SRI C.G. KUMAR, S/O GURURAJU .C.P, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.419, TANK ROAD, VANNIGARAPETE, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN - 561 203 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH H.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY POLICE INSPECTOR, TUMAKURU TOWN POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU - 572 101. REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. AISHWARYA T.G., W/O. ARUN KUMAR B.N., Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6TH CROSS, NR COLONY, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU KARNATAKA, PIN - 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 STATE. SRI. SHARAN L. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1560/2024 DTD 19.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN SPL.CASE.NO.278/2024, VIDE DOCUMENT NO.7 TO THIS APPEAL, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC.3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V)(A) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANTS IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, TUMAKURU TOWN P.S., IN CR.NO.151/2024 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL. THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Venkatesh H.N., learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Sharan - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 L. Jain, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant- respondent No.2. 2. Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST Act') with following prayer: "To set aside the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.1560/2024, dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.Case No.278/2024, vide document No.7 to this appeal, for the alleged offences punishable U/s. 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(l)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act and grant anticipatory bail to the appellants in the event of their arrest by 1st respondent police (Tumakuru Town Police Station) and allow this appeal in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Facts in the nutshell, which are most essential for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Tumakuru Town Police, which was registered in Crime No.151/2024 on 23.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act and Sections 504 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants. 3.2. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that on 23.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant visited the police station and lodged a written complaint. In the said written complaint, it is narrated that she got acquainted with Arun Kumar through social media-face book and thereafter there was a love affair and they decided to marry. The complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste and Arun Kumar is belonging to the Devanga community. As such, there was a resistance for the marriage in the family of Arun Kumar. But Arun Kumar persuaded his family members and marriage was arranged. On 28.11.2019 marriage took place and thereafter complainant joined the matrimonial home wherein the elder sister of her husband Pavithra and her husband Kumar started opposing the relationship. 3.3. It is further contended that the since complainant is belonging to Madiga community, Arun - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 Kumar would have had a better alliance and used to insult the complainant by picking up quarrel. It is also found from the complaint averments that Arun Kumar should cut off the marital tie and they would find a better alliance for him. When complainant left to her parental house for the confinement period, appellants used to call her over telephone and abused her in filthy language. 3.4. It is further alleged that father-in-law of the complainant died recently, and on 15.03.2024 at about 2.30 p.m. both the appellants visited Doddaballapura and picked up the quarrel, stating that she would not be allowed to have a share in the ancestral property of the father-in-law of the complainant. 3.5. It is also found from the complaint averments that appellants had given life threat apart from abusing the complainant by taking out the caste name. It is further contended that delay in lodging the complaint has taken place on account of the complainant was residing at her parental home, as she was pregnant and delivered a baby. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 3.6. Based on the complaint, Tumakuru Town Police registered the case against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet reflecting the appellants as absconding accused. 3.7. The attempt made by the appellants to obtain grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, appellants are before this Court. 4. Sri Venkatesh H.N., learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that material evidence on record especially the complaint averments would not make out a case for rejecting the anticipatory bail by resorting to Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 5. He would further contend that on careful consideration of material on record, there is no prima-facie material which would make out a case that appellants allegedly abused the complainant by taking out the caste name so as to degrade the complainant in the public view - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 as the incident said to have occurred in the house of the complainant and therefore, embargo under Section 18 of the SC/ST is not applicable in the case on hand and therefore, the appeal can be heard on merits. 6. Insofar as the abscondence of the appellants is concerned, Sri Venkatesh H.N. would contend that appellants are not to be termed as absconding accused persons, inasmuch as, they did approach the Sessions Court, Tumakuru seeking anticipatory bail and thereafter they are before this Court. 7. In support of said contentions, Sri Venkatesh H.N would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Asha Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and judgment of Allahabad High Court in Nitin Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the relevant portions at paras 4, 8, 9 and paras 3, 10 and 13 of the respective orders are culled out hereunder for the ready reference. "4-Insofar as the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C) against the appellant are concerned, it is submitted that it is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 not as if there is a complete embargo to consider the application for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. 9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation. However, liberty is also given to the respondents to seek cancellation of bail that has been granted, in the event of a violation of the conditions which are to be imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any perceived threats against the witnesses. 3. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Nitin Tomar in Case Crime No.259 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 307, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Baghpat, District - Baghpat. 10. In Srikant Upadhyay and Ors. (supra) case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 24 that "At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice." 13. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter." 8. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, while opposing the bail grounds would contend that admittedly, the appellants are - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 not available to the investigating agency and absconding charge sheet came to be filed. 9. He would further contend that non-availability of the appellants during the course of investigation did hamper the true course of investigation and no reason is forthcoming as to abscondence of the appellants either in the appeal memo or in any other material placed on record along with the appeal memo. 10. He would also contend that very fact that the appellants are absconding from the date of registration of the case shows that they are guilty of the offences alleged against them and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Sri Sharan L. Jain, learned counsel for the de- facto complainant-respondent No.2, while adopting the arguments put forth on behalf of the learned High Court Government Pleader, would further contend that complaint averments makes it clear that prima-facie materials are - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 available on record which would be sufficient enough to oppose the bail application by resorting to Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 12. He invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded by the investigating officer, wherein there is a specific averment made against the appellants herein including abusing the complainant in filthy language by taking out her caste name. He also invited the attention of this Court to the statements of eyewitnesses to the incident namely the complainant's husband Arun Kumar, Vijalakshmi, Prakash and Satheesh Chandran. 13. He also brought to the notice of this Court the spot mahazar along with the photograph wherein the place of incident is a front yard of the house where the complainant was found. Therefore, the contentions taken on behalf of the appellants that the incident has not occurred in the public view cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that complainant got married to Arun Kumar who is the younger brother of first appellant and brother- in-law of the second appellant. Admittedly, after the marriage, the complainant joined the matrimonial home and there were quarrels in between them on account of the inter-caste marriage. There is also a dispute with regard to the property of the father-in-law of the complainant while registering the property in the name of Kalavathi. 16. According to the appellants, an agreement to sell was entered into at the instance of Arun Kumar and complainant in the name of Kalavathi and pursuant to the same, the sale deed is also now registered. 17. It is the specific case of the appellants that in order to knock off the property, denying the share to the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 first appellant, a false complaint came to be foisted against the appellants herein taking advantage of the caste of the complainant and Arun Kumar is supporting his wife in the incident only with an intention to deny the share to the first appellant in her father's property. 18. Fact remains that there is now ill-will between the appellants and Arun Kumar and complainant. Whether the intention of the complainant to foist a false case is only with an intention to take an upper hand in respect of sharing of the property belonging to the father of Arun Kumar and first appellant or not is a question that has to be established during the trial while considering the merits of the matter. 19. Fact remains that the appellants were not available to the investigating agency all through right from the registration of the case on 23.03.2024. No doubt they did approach the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and that request came to be rejected on 19.10.2024. Admittedly, the petition itself came to be filed on - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 04.10.2024 and from 23.03.2024 to 04.10.2024 where were the appellants is not forthcoming on record and no explanation is offered as to why they did not cooperate with the investigating agency. 20. Further, since the appellants have been shown as absconding accused, they have to be treated as not a law-abiding citizen which is sine qua non for entertaining the anticipatory bail application. 21. No doubt, learned counsel placed reliance of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Dubey and judgment of Alahabad High Court in Nitin Tomar referred to supra. 22. In both the cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court and Allahabad High Court were not dealing with the offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act and accused were alleged with the other IPC offences where there is no specific bar to entertain the anticipatory bail as is found in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 23. Further, facts of those cases are altogether different from the facts involved in the case on hand. 24. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have not made out extreme or exceptional circumstances to entertain their bail application especially under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 25. For ready reference, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is culled out hereunder: "Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act." 26. On careful reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that if prima-facie materials are available on record which would establish commission of the offences under the SC/ST Act, entertaining the anticipatory bail is impermissible or embargo in the Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would come into operation. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 27. Evolution of law in interpreting the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shows that Courts are not precluded from considering the material on record to find out whether in a given set of facts and circumstances of the case, prima-facie case is made out the provisions of SC/ST Act and if any such materials are not available then embargo under Section 18 would not be applicable. 28. But in the case on hand, investigation agency has recorded along with complainant's husband Arun Kumar, statement of two independent witnesses. They all have stated before the Investigating Officer that they have heard used abusive words. Whether, those statements are reliable or not is to be examined only during the trial. 29. For the purpose of consideration of bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, this Court has taken into consideration the statements said to have given by those witnesses before the Investigating officer. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6672 CRL.A No. 2212 of 2024 Expressing any further opinion on the veracity of those statements would definitely affect the rights of the parties in one way or the other during the trial. 30. It is settled principle of law that no emphasis are required while considering the bail application, which precludes from holding a mini trial. 31. Thus, desisting from holding a mini trial on the material on record is appreciated, the appeal of appellants should fail not only on the ground of embargo under Section 18 of the SC/St Act, but also considering the fact of the abscondence of the appellants. 32. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Criminal Appeal is merit-less and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MKM: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19