- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100440 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVANAND S/O KALAGOUDA NINGANURI, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. NIDASOSI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. SIDDAGOUDA S/O RAYAGOUDA NINGANURI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, R/AT. NIDASOSI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. GOUDAPPA @ MAHALINGOUDA S/O KALAGOUDA NINGANURI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT, R/AT. NIDASOSI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. AJAY S/O MAHALINGOUDA NINGANURI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. NIDASOSI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. SHIVU @ SHIVANAND S/O MALLAPPA NANDIHALLI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, R/AT. NIDASOSI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SRI. SHIVU @ SHIVAPPA S/O MALLAPPA MALI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. NIDASOSI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH IO SANKESHWAR PS, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. GEETA W/O MALLAPPA DHALI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE, R/AT. AMMANAGI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O LAXMAN DHALI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE R/AT. AMMANAGI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANTOSH B. PUJARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN SANKESHWAR PS CRIME NO.092/2025, BEING TRIED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO ALL THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1-6, HAVING PRESENTED APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.92/2025 was registered by Sankeshwar Police Station, Belagavi District, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are before this Court under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.92/2025 was registered by Sankeshwar Police Station, Belagavi District for the aforesaid offences against the appellants and others based on the first information dated 20.05.2025 received from Smt. Geeta Malappa Dhali. Apprehending arrest in the case, appellants had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.661/2025 before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 14.07.2025. Therefore, they are before this Court in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is an inordinate delay of 18 days in filing the first information. The appellants do not have any criminal antecedents. A reading of the first information would go to show that injured victim has not suffered any grievous injury in the incident in question and the alleged offences under SC/ST (POA) Act does not get attracted in the present case. The appellants are ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 have opposed the appeal. They submit that the injured victim has suffered one grievous injury and three simple injuries in the incident in question. He was admitted in the hospital and after he was discharged, though he had approached the police, they had refused to register the FIR and therefore, the first informant had approached the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 thereafter FIR was registered. The delay in approaching the police has been satisfactorily explained. In view of bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, prayer made by the appellants for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be rejected. 6. The first information is submitted by the wife of the injured. In the first information, she has stated that on 01.05.2025 there was a quarrel between her husband and accused no.1 Shivananda Ninganuri for the reason that her husband had asked accused no.1 to supply full tank of water. Accused No.1 allegedly had abused her husband referring to his caste. However, reading of the first information would go to show that there is no such allegation in the first information that accused no.1 had abused the husband of the first Informant referring to his caste in a public place nor there is any mention that general public were present at the said spot when accused no.1 allegedly had abused the husband of the first informant referring to his caste. Therefore, a serious doubt arises whether the alleged offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act gets attracted against the accused. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 7. It is further alleged in the first information that on 02.05.2025, the first informant was informed by her daughter about the assault made on her husband, who is the injured victim in the present case. Immediately thereafter the first informant had gone to the government hospital, where her husband was admitted and on verification, she came to know about the assault made by the accused persons on her husband. In respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 01.05.2025 and 02.05.2025, first information is belatedly submitted by the wife of the injured victim on 20.05.2025, which is after a delay 18 days. In the first information, no explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay in approaching the police. 8. Learned HCGP has produced the records relating to the present case and perusal of the said report would go show that injured had initially approached community health centre, Sankeshwar. Though a history of assault was mentioned in the said hospital, the name of the persons, who had assaulted the injured victim was not disclosed. In the wound certificate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 issued by community health center would go to show that the injured had suffered only simple injuries in the incident. 9. In the records, another wound certificate issued by the Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences is also available. Even in the said hospital, history of the assault was mentioned but the name of persons, who had assaulted the injured victim was not disclosed. In the wound certificate issued by the Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences, it is found that there are some over writings which are in different hand writings. The injuries, which are said to be simple in nature are found in one hand writing and the fourth injury, which is said to be a grievous injury is in a different hand writing. From the perusal of the wound certificate, it is apparent that, the insertion with regard to fourth injury was made subsequently. 10. In the present case, statement of the eyewitnesses has been recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, 2023 by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. A reading of the said statement would go to show that the incident in question had taken place on 02.05.2025 because of a road rage, after the car of injured victim had blocked bullet bike of accused no.1. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 eyewitnesses have said that about 50 to 60 public who had gathered there had assaulted the injured victim and he had suffered injuries. It appears that, it is under these circumstances, the name of the persons, who had assaulted in the injured victim was not revealed in the hospital records. First informant has given a totally different version in the belated first information. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the appellants herein have made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.661/2025 is set- aside and the jurisdictional police or any other police of the State are directed to release the appellants in the event of their arrest in Crime No.92/2025 registered by Sankeshwar Police Station, Belagavi District, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10257 CRL.A No. 100440 of 2025 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions: i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. ii. The appellants shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons. iii. The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and they shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon. iv. The appellants shall not involve in similar offences in future. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE RSH, NMS CT:BCK