- 1 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2307 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.51/1B, NEXT TO MANUSHREE GARMENTS, T.P.MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560058. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA M. V., ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BASAVESWARANAGARA P.S BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP, SMT. PRIYANKA K., ADV. FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT VIDE COURT ORDER DT: 26.11.2025) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THIS APPELLANT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE I.E., BASAVESWARANAGARA POLICE BENGALURU TO RELEASE HIM - 2 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 ON BAIL, IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CRIME NO.384/2025 FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(R) AND (S), 3(2), 5(A), OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014 AND U/S 109, 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 29.10.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9057/2025 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-71) (for short 'the trial Court). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of the complaint filed by Hemamalini. K, Basaveswarnagara Police have registered the case in Crime No.384/2025, against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 109, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014. The accused has filed - 3 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail. Same came to be rejected by the trial Court dated 29.10.2025. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. The notice is duly served to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 appeared before this Court through his counsel and filed written objection along with verifying affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, appellant is innocent and he has got valid and tenable defense on his behalf. The complaint does not speak of the commission of offence punishable under sections 109, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. As per complaint lodged by the complainant regarding financial transaction between the appellant and the complainant, the said complaint is purely civil in nature. Appellant has already paid entire amount to the complainant. The complainant has lodged a false complaint against the appellant. As per the complaint, the relationship between the complainant - 4 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 and the appellant is from the year 2020 through a marriage website jeevansathi.com. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the complaint was filed on 23.09.2025. As per para 3 of the complainant, the alleged incident happened in her shop during August 2023 at around 06.00 pm. Till today, she has not taken any legal action against the appellant. However, the complainant has not disclosed the true facts at the time of lodging the complaint. Further he would submit that, on 18th September, 2025 about 11.05 pm, a four-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MK-1772 driven by the appellant hit the complainant. Learned counsel would submit that the said vehicle does not belong to the appellant. Appellant does not drive any vehicle. Hence the question of hitting the complainant does not arise. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, have reiterated the averments made in the statement of objections and sought for dismissal of this appeal. - 5 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 7. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the appellant has made out ground to allow this appeal? (ii) What order? Regarding Point No.1 8. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On the basis of the complained filed by one Smt. Hemamalini K., Basaveshwaranagar Police registered case in Crime No.384/2025, against the accused for the offence punishable under section 109, 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014. The alleged incident took place between 04th April 2021 and 18th September, 2025. Complaint came to be filed on 27th September, 2025. 9. The trial Court, at paragraph 17 of the judgment, has observed that the Court has carefully gone through the CCTV footage which discloses that a car on the public road - 6 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 intentionally hits the two wheeler and causes the accident. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said vehicle does not belong to the appellant and the appellant does not drive any vehicle. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim has not sustained any injuries. The prosecution has not placed any material before this Court. In this regard, though First Information Report was submitted before the concerned Court on 18th September, 2025, even after lapse of 60 days, the Investigating Officer has not submitted final report before the Court as required under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Rules, 1995. The victim has appeared before this Court and filed state of objections. A perusal of the complaint, at this stage, reveals that there is no prima facie materials to show that the accused has abused the complainant in public view. Hence, there is no bar to grant anticipatory bail, as sought for. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, abnormal delay in filing the complaint, previous antecedents of the appellant, I am of the opinion that it is - 7 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 just and proper to allow the appeal. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 10. For the reasons aforestated and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. Appeal is allowed; ii. Order dated 29th October, 2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9057 of 2025 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-71), is set aside. Consequently, the application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is allowed; iii. Appellant shall be released on bail upon executing a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer; - 8 - CRL.A No. 2307 of 2025 iv. If charge sheet is filed, then the appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to enlarge the accused on bail on executing a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; v. The appellant shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses; vi. The appellant shall assist the Investigating Officer for investigation; vii. The appellant shall not indulge in similar offence. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA,lnn