IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2425 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ASHA A C W/O YOGENDRA P, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22058, B2-T2, PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 073 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY CHITHRAHALLI GATE POLICE, HOLALKERE CIRCLE, CHITHRADURGA, Digitally REPRESENTED BY signed by MALATESH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, K C HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Location:

BANGALORE-560 001.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SMT. MANJULA W/O RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRINCIPAL R/AT IUDC LAYOUT, 9^TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA-577 501 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)

ACT, PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT - POLICE TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE HER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 318 OF THE BHARATHIYA NYAYA SAMHITHA, 2023 AND U/S 3 OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, BASED ON A FALSE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY ONE SMT.MANJULA C/O RAGHAVENDRA.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State.

2. Appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 [hereinafter 'the Act' for short] is filed by the appellant with a request to grant anticipatory bail in respect of an incident said to have occurred on 31.07.2024 and appellant has received notice from the Police and therefore, she is apprehending arrest.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State submits that no FIR has been registered and if any of the offences under the provisions of the Act is involved in the incident in an FIR, under Section 18 of the Act, there is a clear bar for entertaining anticipatory bail application. Therefore, in an unregistered crime, the grant of anticipatory bail, that too, under the special provisions of Special Act is impermissible and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

4. In reply, Sri Srinivas. V, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the very fact of issuance of notice by Police itself establishes the real apprehension of arrest which is a sine qua non for entertaining the anticipatory bail application as is held in the judgment of Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 reiterated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694. Therefore, this Court may exercise its power under Section 14A of the Act read with Section 482 of BNNS, 2023 and grant limited bail.

5. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material on record. Except the Police Notice, there is no other material on record to appreciate case of Appellant. Admitted by, No case registered in respect of the incident that is said to have occurred on 31.07.2024, 6. As is rightly contended on behalf of Prosecution, if at all, if a case is registered under the provisions of the Act, Section 18 of the Act is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. However, in recent pronouncements on the subject it has been clarified that the Court is not precluded from considering the application on merits, if no ingredients are available on record to attract the provisions of Act and in such a case, Section 18 would not be a bar.

8. To ascertain these aspects of the matter, there is neither complaint nor FIR. Therefore, the apprehension of appellant in the case on hand cannot be considered only on the basis of Police Notice dated 14.09.2024.

9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal needs to be dismissed.

10. However, if any FIR