Point of Law: It is the duty vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence to secure conviction. But all the materials secured by the I.O. require to be tested by the witnesses as Examination-in-chief on the part of the prosecution as well as stands for crossexamination by the defence counsel.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021 is one Shek Muneer Ahamed @ Muneer Ahamed who is arraigned as Accused No.12 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021 is one Junaid Khan who is arraigned as Accused No.16, both relating to the case in Cr.No.208/2020 registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S.

2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021 has preferred the appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, praying to, set aside the order passed by the LXX – Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, at Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No.7048/2020 and thereby to release the appellant/accused No.12 on bail in Crime No.208/2020 for the punishable offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 435, 436, 448, 395, r/w 149 of IPC and under Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981 and under Sections 3(1)(c)(r), 3(2)(iii), (v), (v-a) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 now registered as Spl.C.No.758/2020 pending on the file of LXX-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru.

3. The appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021 has preferred the appeal under Section 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act, praying to, enlarge the appellant/Accused No.16 on bail in Spl.C.No.758/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 435, 436, 448, 395, 427 r/w 149 of IPC and under Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and under Section 3(1)(c)(r), 3(2)(iii), (v), (va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, in Spl.C.No.758/2020 of the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru.

4. Both these appeals have been preferred by Accused No.12 and Accused No.16 respectively relating to the case in Cr.No.208/2021 of Spl.C.No.758/2020. The said crime came to be registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. relating to offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and so also for offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Both these appeals arise out of the same incident and hence arise out of the same crime number, i.e., Cr.No.208/2020. But the impugned orders rendered under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are different i.e., in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 in respect of Accused No.12 and Spl.C.No.758/2020 in respect of Accused No.16. Hence, both these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

5. Heard the learned counsel Shri S. Balakrishnan in respect of the appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021/Accused No.12, the learned counsel Shri Anees Ali Khan in respect of the appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021/Accused No.16 and the learned counsel Shri P. Prasanna Kumar, Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 in both appeals, who are appearing through video conferencing.

6. Respondent No.2 in both appeals/Shri Pavan Kumar T is the informant/complainant/ dependant in respect of Cr.No.208/2020 relating to the case in Spl.C No.758/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli P.S.

7. In Crl.A.No.479/2021, though notice has been duly served on Respondent No.2/Pavan Kumar T as contemplated under Chapter IV-A of Section 15A (5) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, he has not participated in the proceedings. However, learned Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 in both matters, has taken care of the contentions as well as the allegations made in the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 who is the gravamen of the incident.

8. The appellants/accused had approached the Special Court by filing a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by taking various contentions by referring to the FIR recorded by the first respondent/Devarajeevanahalli P.S. But the said bail petitions came to be dismissed by order dated 15.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 in respect of Accused No.12 and by order dated 23.02.2021 passed in Spl.C.758/2020 in respect of Accused No.16.

9. Subsequent to rejection of the bail petitions, the appellant in