Anticipatory bail can be granted when allegations are not severe and the accused are law-abiding citizens.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.Kirthi Lata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Vidyashankar G.Dalawai, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 14-A(2) of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (POA) Act r/w Section 482 of BNSS-2023, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Crl. Misc. No.274/2025 dated 29.04.2025, wherein, the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge rejected the petition of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 109, 76, 352 and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS-2023, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 11.04.2025 at about 11 a.m., when the first informant was standing in front of Gram Panchayath, Nelogal, accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention took quarrel with husband of first informant by name Jayappa, assaulted him with hands, accused No.1 assaulted him with iron rod on his head and accused No.2 also assaulted with stone on the head of the husband of the first informant and the accused pulled the saree of the first informant and thereby outraged her modesty. Further, all the accused persons intentionally insulted the first informant and her husband to provoke their breach of peace and also by taking their caste and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate them. Hence, the first informant lodged the complaint, which led to registration of FIR and investigation. Apprehending the arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police, the accused persons filed anticipatory bail before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. However, the same was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, accused Nos.1 to 3 filed this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are law abiding citizens, accused No.1 is the Class-I contractor, accused No.2 is the Executive Engineer and accused No.3 is working as peon in the Panchayath office. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is professional rivalry between the husband of the first informant and accused No.1, who is the Class-I contractor in the same locality. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are public servants. The accused have been falsely implicated in the case and they are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Further, the injured Jayappa has already been discharged from the Hospital and as per the wound certificate, he sustained only simple injuries and therefore, there is no threat to his life and hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1- State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-de facto complainant vehemently contended that the appellants are involved in heinous offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and they assaulted the victim with iron rod and stone and thereby caused head injury. There is a prima facie case against the appellants and therefore, the anticipatory bail petition filed by the appellants is not maintainable under Section 18-A of SC/ST(POA) Act, in view of the ratio laid down in the case ofPrathviraj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others , [2020(4) SCC 727] and Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , [(2018) 6 SCC 454] . If the appellants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is likelihood of tampering the