RAMESH G. PATEL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants and so also, Sri Harsha D.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who are appearing through video conferencing. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 is present before the Court physically.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the order passed by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.525/2021 dated 09.04.2021 rejecting the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in crime No.37/2021 registered by BIAL Police by recording FIR on 18.03.2021 for the offences under section 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the FIR has been recorded by the first respondent police, even there being no ingredients to constitute the said offence. But the police are making hectic efforts to arrest these accused for no reasons. The impugned order passed by the Court below has been challenged under the relevant provisions of the special enactment of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The nature and gravity of the offence and the antecedents of the accused and possibility of accused fleeing away from justice and likelihood to repeat the similar offence and whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicants by arresting are the facts to be taken at the time of considering the bail application.