The court concluded that anticipatory bail may be granted if the allegations do not show strong grounds for arrest under relevant statutes.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellants are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.52/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 329 (3), 351(2), 352 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS 2023’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC and ST (POA) Act’). Factual matrix of the case:

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, a complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging that on 09.03.2025 at about 3.30 p.m., to 4.00 p.m, the appellants and five to six members suddenly trespassed into the land bearing Sy.no.125/1 and Sy.no.22/2 claiming that the said land belongs to one Vinod Kumar B.S and Arun Kumar B.S. The complainant had been abused by naming his caste and further, the accused had pushed his wife and the complainant and also abused them by naming their caste. Thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against the appellants. The police have registered a case in Crime No.52/2025 and issued a police notice on 24.03.2025. Therefore, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking anticipatory bail.

3. Heard Sri.H.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the entire case is based on ill-will and after thought. In fact, the complainant is taking advantage of the caste had filed a false case in order to assist his owner. Therefore, they are trying to implicate the appellants in a false case. Hence, the appellants may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 –

State vehemently opposed the said submissions and she further submitted that there is a bar under Section 18A of the SC and ST (POA) Act. The ingredients of the complaint would discloses that the accused had intentionally insulted the complainant and his family members by naming the caste, which attracts the ingredients of the above said provision. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that the complainant Sri.Manjunath B.M was looking after the property of Sri.Vinod Kumar B.S and Sri.Arun Kumar B.S bearing Sy.nos.125/1 and 22/2. The construction was being held in the said properties, who was deputed to take care of the said properties. Such being the fact, on 09.03.2025 at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m., Smt.Vijaylakshmi, her son and others have trespassed the said properties of Sri.Vinod Kumar and scolded the complainant and his family members by naming their caste and also threatened them with dire consequences. Therefore, the complainant lodges a complaint on the following day. Prima facie, it appears from the record that the appellants have made out a case to grant them bail.

7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The criminal appeal is allowed.

ii) The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

a) The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within one month from today and executed the bond and furnish the sureties to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

b) The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

c) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.