AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V Srishananda, J
Heard.
Objections filed by the learned HCGP is taken on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it is a dispute between the husband and wife and therefore, he has no objection to allow the appeal.
Placing submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 on record and having heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Sri Aruna Shyama for the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out which would attract the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act') and other offences are not so grave enough so as to deny anticipatory bail, but, the grounds of appeal would merit for consideration despite bar under Section 18 of the 'SC/ST (PoA) Act.
Accordingly, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the matter, following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Appellants are directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 27.02.2025 at about 10:00 A.M. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the appellants into custody and conclude the custodial investigation, if any, on the very same day before 2:00 P.M., and thereafter, enlarge them on bail on obtaining bond for Rs.50,000/- each with one surety to the likesum and satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(iii) Appellants shall not tamper prosecution witnesses.
(iv) Appellants shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the Court as and when directed.
(v) Appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru Urban District without prior permission.