In a notable decision, the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71), granted regular bail to Amar Singh, a 64-year-old petitioner, in a case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The court, presided over by Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M., passed the order on September 4, 2023, in Crl.Misc.No.8473/2023, primarily observing that the core dispute appeared to be civil in nature and that the proceedings in the First Information Report (FIR) had already been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.

The Case and Allegations

The case originates from FIR No. 61/2023 registered by the Chandra Layout Police Station based on a complaint filed by Smt. Ashwini, the second respondent. The petitioner, Amar Singh, was booked for a litany of serious offences, including:

• IPC Sections: 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (Criminal intimidation), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
• SC/ST Act Sections: 3(1)(r) (Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view) and 3(1)(s) (Abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view).¹

According to the complaint, the genesis of the dispute lies in a property transaction. On January 18, 2019, the accused (Amar Singh being accused No. 1) allegedly executed a Sale Agreement after receiving an advance amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed to execute the sale deed.

The criminal allegations center on an incident that occurred four years later, on January 11, 2023, when the complainant and her husband approached the accused’s house demanding either the execution of the sale deed or the return of the advance money. It is alleged that during this confrontation, accused No. 1 (Amar Singh) abused the complainant in filthy language and made casteist remarks. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 reportedly assaulted and pushed the complainant, while accused No. 4 allegedly threatened her with a knife and snatched a gold chain, alongside issuing a life threat. The complainant’s statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded.

Grounds for Bail: Petitioner’s Stance

The petitioner, represented by Sri. Mohan Kumar.D., Advocate, sought regular bail based on several points:

1. False Implication: The petitioner claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated in the case.
2. Delay in Lodging FIR: A delay of two months in lodging the complaint was cited, suggesting it was an “afterthought” with the intention to keep the petitioner incarcerated.
3. Nature of Offences: The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
4. Civil Dispute: The petitioner emphasized that the fundamental dispute was civil in nature (a failure to execute a sale deed), arguing that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were incorrectly invoked.
5. Tenable Defence and Compliance: The petitioner is a permanent resident of the address shown, has deep roots in society, and is willing to abide by all conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution and Complainant’s Opposition

The learned Special Public Prosecutor, representing the State and the complainant, submitted detailed objections opposing the bail petition. The prosecution stressed the seriousness of the offences, arguing that the accused had not only deceived the complainant in the property transaction but also threatened, abused, and humiliated her by making casteist remarks. They contended that if released on bail, the petitioner might indulge in similar offences and pose a threat to the complainant. The complainant herself appeared before the court and confirmed she would proceed with the matter alongside the Special Public Prosecutor.

The Court’s Rationale and Order

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the materials on record, the court proceeded to assess the bail application, focusing on key judicial and factual developments.

The decisive factor that weighed heavily in favor of the petitioner was the stay of proceedings issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The record before the Special Judge showed that in Writ Petition No. 18995/2023(GM-RES) 482 dated August 31, 2023, and a similar reference to Writ Petition No. 19053/2023(GM-RES) 482, the High Court had been pleased to stay the proceedings, namely the FIR itself.

The court also carefully considered the nature of the allegations and noted that the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Crucially, the court found the petitioner’s argument regarding the civil nature of the dispute to be a reasonable prayer. The operative part of the reasoning stated:

“The record discloses that this petitioner is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest and his detention is not required for further custodial interrogation and his further detention should not result in pre-trial detention. Accordingly, this court is satisfied to consider the bail petition of the accused by relying on citations placed by the petitioner and on the basis dispute being of any civil in nature the provisions of invoking SC/ST does not arises is a reasonable prayer and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to grant of conditional bail.”

Considering that the petitioner was already in judicial custody and his further detention was not required for custodial interrogation, the court concluded that releasing him on conditional bail with stringent conditions would meet the ends of justice.

The bail petition was therefore allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail upon executing his personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of his relative on the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) as and when called for the purpose of investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence and threaten the witnesses directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall not indulge in any other offence.

The court explicitly warned that if any of these conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail. The order underscores the judiciary’s caution against converting fundamentally civil disputes into criminal proceedings, even when grave sections like the SC/ST Act are invoked.