Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mahesha K C vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC:27925
                                                           CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025


                    HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1374 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

                   BETWEEN:
                   MAHESHA K.C.
                   S/O CHIKKA KULLA NINGAIAH,
                   AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                   R/O SOONAGAHALLI VILLAGE,
                   KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA
                   TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401
                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        REP. BY MYSURU SOUTH POLICE
                        MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS
                        STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                        BANGALORE - 560 001
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V
Location: High     2.   VIJAYKUMAR S
Court of                S/O SIDDAPPA
Karnataka               AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                        RESIDENT OF BANDIPLAYA
                        VILLAGE, ASHRAMA POST
                        MYSURU TALUK - 570 001
                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
                        R2 - SD)

                          THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
                   PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.MISC.NO.864/2025
                   DATED 23.6.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL.DIST. AND
                                   -2-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:27925
                                              CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025


HC-KAR



SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CASE OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH
CR.NO131/2025 OF MYSURU SOUTH P.S, REGISTERED FOR THE O/P
352 OF BNS AND SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT,
1989   PENDING    ON      THE   FILE   OF    THE   VI    ADDL.DIST.     AND
(SESSIONS) SPECIAL JUDGE MYSURU.

       THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act' for short) in the event of his arrest in Crime No.131/2025 of Mysuru South Police Station, pending before the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352 of BNS and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Vijayakumar.

2. Heard Sri Shankar H.S. learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. -3-

NC: 2025:KHC:27925 CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025 HC-KAR

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

4. The first information came to be filed by the informant against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The first information lodged by the informant discloses that, the accused has posted a message on facebook referring to one Sri. Priyank Karge, the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, who belongs to Schedule Caste. The content of the post is not in good taste to be reproduced. Even if such words are used for any other person who may be belonging to upper caste may not be entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail, as it has become a -4- NC: 2025:KHC:27925 CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025 HC-KAR social evil as the person will think that they can post anything and everything on social media comfortably sitting in their place without being accountable. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22