JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N.P.Manu, advocate on behalf of Sri R.Srinivas, learned advocate for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 has been served according to the police report. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

(2.) This appeal is filed under sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenging the order dtd. 27/7/2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 623/2022 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. Since the appellants' application for anticipatory bail under sec. 438 Cr.P.C was rejected by the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) If the impugned order is perused, the court below is of the opinion that investigation was still in progress and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Another vs Ramakrishna Balothia and Another [(1995) 3 SCC 221], anticipatory bail cannot be granted. It is a matter to be mentioned here that the trial court has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pruthvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India [WP(C) No.1015/2018]. It can be only said that the court below has failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case to arrive at a conclusion whether anticipatory bail can be granted or not.