(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 praying to allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge F.T.S.C 1 Ballari dated 28.02.2026 enlarge the Appellant/Accused No.1 on bail in Spl Case No.63/2026 in connection with Crime No.01/2025 registered in D.C.R.E Police Station Ballari, for the offences under Sections 107, 351(2), of BNS and Section 3(2) (V), 3(1)(W) Of SC/ST Act, 1989 Act and Sec 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. pending trial of the case before Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge F.T.S.CI Ballari.)

Oral Judgment

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The appellant seeks regular bail in Special Case No.63/2026 pending before the FTSC-1, Ballari.

3. The offences alleged are under Sections 107, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS') and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Act of 1989') and Section of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('Act of 2012').

4. The appellant's bail application is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The complaint is lodged on 03.12.2025 by mother of the victim. The appellant is arrested on 29.12.2025. Since then he is in custody. The charge sheet is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the complainant and the appellant are relatives. The complainant and appellant's wife are sisters and a family dispute is pending between the two families.

6. The case is filed against the appellant in Crime No.87/2025 for the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 504 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and also Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and same is still pending consideration.

7. It is alleged in the complaint that, the appellant has been threatening the daughter of the complainant and has told complainant's daughter that, the complaint filed against him by her mother will not affect him and do not enter into settlement, he will teach appropriate lesson.

8. It is stated that, on 02.12.2025, the complainant's two daughters and the complainant had dinner and at around 10:30 p.m., the complainant's daughter/victim went to her room and closed the door and next day morning, the daughter did not get up and later, when the door was opened, the complainant noticed that, her daughter found lying on the floor and she had a belt around her neck and the complainant has alleged that the daughter has committed suicide. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet and the alleged death note is recovered.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, since the charge sheet is filed, custodial interrogation is not required. The appellant has not been convicted for any offence earlier. Both the cases including the present case pending against the appellant are on account of the family dispute between the parties and the death note does not pinpoint to the appellant for having committed the alleged offence. Thus, would urge that the appellant be granted regular bail.

10. Learned HCGP and learned counsel for the second respondent jointly oppose the appeal on the premise that, the appellant is responsible for the suicide of the complainant's daughter. The police have recovered the death note. In the death note, there is a reference to the appellant and the victim has mentioned that the appellant is responsible for the death.

11. It is also alleged that, one more case is pending and the appellant has violated the terms and conditions of the bail by threatening the witness of the previous case.

12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the barred and perused the records.

13. The offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment for life. The charge sheet is already filed and the appellant is in custody since last 7 months.

14. The death note is perused by the Court. On the top of the death note, there is a reference to the appellant's name stating that, he is responsible for the death. Remaining part of the death note does not point fingers to the appellant. It is not the case of the respondents that, appellant is convicted for any offence on earlier occasions. The charge sheet is filed and the evidence/material is collected by the police after investigation.

15. Considering the nature of the offence, the Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation is not required. The apprehension of the respondents that the appellant may threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence can be sufficiently addressed by imposing stringent conditions on the appellant. Hence, the following:

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed subject to the following conditions:

          i. Appellant shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.1/2025 on executing a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

          ii. Appellant shall not threaten, induce, or promise anyone acquainted with the facts, nor tamper with evidence or witnesses.

          iii. Appellant shall furnish current address, active mobile number, to the jurisdictional police and intimate any changes within 48 hours.

          iv. Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the police station without prior information and intimation to the jurisdictional police.

          v. Appellant shall not commit any offences.