AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
This appeal is filed seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime registered in FIR No.61/2026 before Betageri Extension Police Station.
The complaint is filed by the father of the deceased, who allegedly committed suicide.
The offences alleged are under Sections 108 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS 2023”).
Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset would submit that, the allegations against one of the accused namely Shashi Shekappa Sivanagutti is similar to that of the petitioner. It is submitted that anticipatory bail is granted by the Sessions Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.291/2026 in favour of Shashi Shekappa Sivanagutti.
It is the further submission that the same Court has erroneously rejected the appellant’s application on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Act of 1989’).
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the contents of the complaint do not attract the provisions of the Act of 1989.
In addition, it is also alleged that the allegation against the appellant is that the victim has committed suicide because of the alleged harassment by the appellant, who allegedly has lent loan to the victim.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the allegation against the appellant is serious. The appellant allegedly lent loan of ₹19,00,000/- to the victim and was repeatedly insisting the victim to pay the amount and used to harass the victim. Unable to cope up with the harassment, the victim has committed suicide is the allegation.
The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
The Court has also perused that in Criminal Miscellaneous No.291/2026, the Sessions Court has granted bail to the two persons namely Shashi and Raghavendra. Shashi is named in the complaint. The allegation against Shashi is similar to that of the appellant.
It is also noticed that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant. The apprehension that the appellant may not co-operate for fair trial or may not co-operate for investigation can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions.
It is also noticed that there is no allegations of any offences under the Act of 1989.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed subject to the following conditions:
Appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional police within 15 days from today and shall be released on bail in connection with Crime registered in FIR No.61/2026 before Betageri Extension Police Station.
Appellant shall furnish bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum.
Appellant shall co-operate with the investigation or inquiry.
Appellant shall not threaten, induce, or promise anyone acquainted with the facts, nor tamper with evidence or witnesses.
Appellant shall furnish current address, active mobile number, to the jurisdictional police and intimate any changes within 48 hours.
Appellant shall mark his presence before the police as and when his presence is required.
Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the police station without prior information and intimation to the jurisdictional police.
Appellant shall not commit any offences.
The observations made in this order are not reflections on the merits of the matter.
The observations are only confined on the merits of the appeal.