- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)-) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAKUMAR S/O K.KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO 8, K.M. ROAD GAVANAHALLI, CHIKKAMANGALURU 577101 NOW R/AT NEAR ESHWARI SCHOOL 6TH CROSS, HOSKEREHALLI BANASHAKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560085. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY AUDUGODI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT. THRIVENI.G D/O GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SHIRKE APARTMENT, KENGERI, BANGALORE 560060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.LOKESHA.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRL.P BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.03.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1415/2025 BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU WHEREBY THE LEARNED JUDGE WAS PLEASED TO REJECT THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 439 OF THE CR.P.C AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 64, 318(2) OF BNS ALONG WITH SEC. 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989 IN CR.NO.39/2025 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT ADUGODI POLICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant who is arraigned as sole accused in Crime No.39/2025 of the respondent - Police is before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) along with Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1415/2025 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.01.2025, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 stating that, accused came in contact with the complainant through Facebook. At the request of the accused, the complainant accompanied the accused and went to the Royal Star Hotel near Lalbagh Wilson Garden, Bengaluru in the month of April 2024, where he had sexual intercourse on the pretext that he would marry her. Further, he was having physical contact with her on several occasions. Thereafter, when the complainant insisted the accused for the marriage in the month of October, 2024, however, he refused to marry her by saying that she belongs to a schedule caste and his family members are not agreeing for the marriage. Therefore, she lodges a complaint against the appellant. The respondent police have registered a case for the offences stated supra. The investigation is under progress. 3. Heard Sri.C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior counsel for the appellant along with learned counsel Sri.Chetan Jadhav, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Lokesha.K, learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 4. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant was working in the company as HR. The complainant approached the appellant for getting the insurance done. As such, they came in contact in a public premise. The complainant has misused not only the community, but, also that she is a woman and is trying to implicate the appellant in a false case. In fact, the appellant had not taken the complainant to any hotel. The entire allegations are baseless and bald. The ingredients under the provisions of SC and ST Act are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It is further submitted that mere chatting with the appellant and exchanging of messages is not sufficient to hold that he had committed sexual intercourse and also threatened her by naming her caste etc. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently justified in rejecting the bail by the Trial Court and she further submitted that, the memo filed along with screen shots of chat that had taken place between the appellant and the complainant would indicate that that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant on several occasions. Therefore, the matter has to be stringently dealt with in accordance with the law and his bail application has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and she prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the alleged incident starts from 15.04.2024 to 15.01.2025. The complainant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 stated in her complaint that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse on several occasions by the appellant and ultimately, he had refused to marry her on the pretext that the complainant belonged to the schedule caste. As per the messages exchanged between the appellant and the complainant, it appears that the appellant had not bothered much about the caste of the complainant and he had an intention to marry her and on several occasions, both the parties have exchanged some obscene messages. 9. The marriage might have been broken due to various other reasons, however, that cannot be tagged that, he refused for the marriage only on the ground that she belonged to schedule caste. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. 10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The order dated 03.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.No.1415/2025 by the learned LXX Additional - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30020 CRL.A No. 573 of 2025 City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru, is set aside. iii) The appellant / accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.39/2025 of respondent-police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. b) The appellant shall not hamper the Court proceedings. c) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15