Court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence to substantiate allegations under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act before denying bail.

JUDGMENT :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Spl.Case No.659/2025 pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Ballari, arising out of Crime No.37/2025 registered by Arasikere Police Station, Vijayanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 70 (1), 75(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS 2023) and Sections 3 (1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 are before this Court in these two appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 seeking regular bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.37/2025 was registered by Arasikere Police Station, Vijayanagar initially for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 351(2), 352, 75(2) read with Section 3 (5) of BNS 2023 against the driver, conductor of the private bus and another person. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 3 were arrested on 02.04.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by appellants before the trial Court in Spl.Case No.659/2025 was rejected. Therefore, they are before this Court in these two appeals.

4. Learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the appellants having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that absolutely no allegations are made in the first information which would attract the offence punishable under Section 70 of the BNS 2023. Even the medical records of the victim lady do not support the allegation now found in the charge sheet. The appellants who have no other criminal antecedents are in custody for the last more than 3 months. Investigation in the case is already completed. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeals.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the prayer in the appeals and submit that though in the first information, there is no allegation of any kind of sexual assault made on the victim lady, in her further statement she has made such allegation which would attract offence under Section 70 of the BNS 2023. Appellants have committed heinous offence and in the event they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution witness. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the appeals.

6. In respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 31.03.2025, the first information was submitted by the victim lady, aged about 28 years, on 01.04.2025. In the typed first information, which was filed by the victim lady on 01.04.2025, she has stated that her husband has died about 4 years earlier and on 31.03.2025, after visiting the temple, along with her children, she was returning to her village in a bus and there were about 8 to 10 passengers in the said bus. After the aforesaid passengers got down from the bus, driver, conductor and another person who was present in the bus allegedly misbehaved with her and when she resisted their act, they criminally intimidated her. At that time, her children started shouting and hearing the same, public came to the spot. Thereafter aforesaid 3 persons ran away from the bus. She has stated that in the said incident, she had not suffered any injury and therefore, her medical examination is not necessary. It is under these circumstances, based on the first information submitted by the victim lady, FIR was initially registered against 3 persons, only for the offences