JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021 is one Shek Muneer Ahamed @ Muneer Ahamed who is arraigned as Accused No.12 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021 is one Junaid Khan who is arraigned as Accused No.16, both relating to the case in Cr.No.208/2020 registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. 2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021 has preferred the appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, praying to, set aside the order passed by the LXX – Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, at Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No.7048/2020 and thereby to release the appellant/accused No.12 on bail in Crime No.208/2020 for the punishable offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 435, 436, 448, 395, r/w 149 of IPC and under Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act 1981 and under Sections 3(1)(c)(r), 3(2)(iii), (v), (v-a) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 now registered as Spl.C.No.758/2020 pending on the file of LXX-Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru. 3. The appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021 has preferred the appeal under Section 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act, praying to, enlarge the appellant/Accused No.16 on bail in Spl.C.No.758/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 435, 436, 448, 395, 427 r/w 149 of IPC and under Section 2 of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and under Section 3(1)(c)(r), 3(2)(iii), (v), (va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, in Spl.C.No.758/2020 of the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Bengaluru. 4. Both these appeals have been preferred by Accused No.12 and Accused No.16 respectively relating to the case in Cr.No.208/2021 of Spl.C.No.758/2020. The said crime came to be registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. relating to offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 and so also for offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Both these appeals arise out of the same incident and hence arise out of the same crime number, i.e., Cr.No.208/2020. But the impugned orders rendered under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are different i.e., in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 in respect of Accused No.12 and Spl.C.No.758/2020 in respect of Accused No.16. Both these appeals arise out of the same incident and hence arise out of the same crime number, i.e., Cr.No.208/2020. But the impugned orders rendered under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are different i.e., in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 in respect of Accused No.12 and Spl.C.No.758/2020 in respect of Accused No.16. Hence, both these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 5. Heard the learned counsel Shri S. Balakrishnan in respect of the appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021/Accused No.12, the learned counsel Shri Anees Ali Khan in respect of the appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021/Accused No.16 and the learned counsel Shri P. Prasanna Kumar, Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 in both appeals, who are appearing through video conferencing. 6. Respondent No.2 in both appeals/Shri Pavan Kumar T is the informant/complainant/ dependant in respect of Cr.No.208/2020 relating to the case in Spl.C No.758/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli P.S. 7. In Crl.A.No.479/2021, though notice has been duly served on Respondent No.2/Pavan Kumar T as contemplated under Chapter IV-A of Section 15A (5) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, he has not participated in the proceedings. However, learned Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 in both matters, has taken care of the contentions as well as the allegations made in the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 who is the gravamen of the incident. 8. The appellants/accused had approached the Special Court by filing a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by taking various contentions by referring to the FIR recorded by the first respondent/Devarajeevanahalli P.S. But the said bail petitions came to be dismissed by order dated 15.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 in respect of Accused No.12 and by order dated 23.02.2021 passed in Spl.C.758/2020 in respect of Accused No.16. 9. Subsequent to rejection of the bail petitions, the appellant in both appeals, i.e., Accused Nos.12 and 16, have preferred these appeals respectively under the relevant provisions of Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest and moreover, some of the co-accused have already been released on bail in Crl.A.No.381/2021 dated 20.04.2021 by imposing certain suitable conditions. The appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest and moreover, some of the co-accused have already been released on bail in Crl.A.No.381/2021 dated 20.04.2021 by imposing certain suitable conditions. The appellant in both these appeals stand on a similar footing as that of the appellant in Crl.A.No.381/2021 and on that premise, the learned counsel for the respective appellant seeks to allow the appeals and consequently to set aside the orders passed by the Special Court in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 in respect of Accused No.12 and in Spl.C.No.758/2020 in respect of Accused No.16. Consequent upon allowing the appeals, the respective petitions filed by Accused Nos.12 and 16 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. be restored and thereafter the grounds urged in the aforesaid bail petitions which are in consonance with the contentions taken in the appeal memo be considered and consequently grant bail to the accused, where the accused are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this court while granting bail. 10. The incident though revolves around a sitting MLA Shri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy of Pulakeshinagar Constituency, Bengaluru City, but by a Special order dated 18.06.2021, these matters have been assigned to the Regular Bench having roster subject to deal with the matters. Consequently, these matters are taken up for disposal together, with the consent of the learned counsel for appellant in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 and so also learned Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 who represents the entire case of the prosecution. 11. It transpires from the case of the prosecution that the incident had taken place on 11.08.2020 at around 8.30 to 9.30 p.m. But the complaint came to be registered by the gravamen of the complaint, namely Pavan Kumar T on 13.08.2020, which is after almost three days. Whereas in the gist of the complaint, it is stated that on 11.08.2020 at around 8.30 p.m., a mob of 500 to 600 people gathered near the complainant’s house and they had entered into his house and abused him in filthy language and caused nuisance in that area. They had pelted stones at his house and also had broken the window glasses and the flower pots kept outside the house. They had pelted stones at his house and also had broken the window glasses and the flower pots kept outside the house. It reveals that when the complainant and his family members were in the house, around 200 to 300 people broke open the door and entered inside the house and poured petrol and burnt the furniture, clothes and other household articles and also had taken away cash of Rs.5,00,000/-and so also gold articles weighing about 200 grams. These are the allegations which are narrated in the complaint filed by the gravamen of the complaint namely Pavan Kumar T, who has registered a complaint before the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. on 13.08.2020. Based upon the said complaint, an FIR was recorded and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and conducted thorough investigation and laid a charge-sheet against the accused before the Special Court. Consequently, the case in Spl.C.No.758/2020 is pending, wherein the appellants are arraigned as Accused Nos.12 and 16. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021 has taken me through the involvement of Accused No.12 who is the appellant before this court. He contends that the name of this accused neither finds place in the FIR nor finds place in the complaint, even though the complaint has been registered by Respondent No.2/Pavan Kumar T, who is none other than a relative of the Sitting MLA Shri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy of Pulakeshinagar Constituency, Bengaluru City. It is the allegation made in the complaint that there is some vandalism by the mob of 300 to 500 people, but there is no specific allegation made against accused No.12 that he had caused destruction of properties or damage of the properties and also that he had set fire by entering into the house of the complainant, either in the complaint or in the charge-sheet materials. Further, the co-accused in Crl.A.No.381/2021 arising out of very same Cr.No.208/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli P.S., have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.04.2021 on consideration of the materials collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation relating to filing of a charge-sheet against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 13. Further, the co-accused in Crl.A.No.381/2021 arising out of very same Cr.No.208/2020 of Devarajeevanahalli P.S., have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.04.2021 on consideration of the materials collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation relating to filing of a charge-sheet against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 13. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.479/2021 is that there is no direct overt act attributed against this appellant/Accused No.12 who is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Since the co-accused has been granted bail, learned counsel seeks that principles of parity be extended to this accused as well. The counsel further contends that the appellant/accused No.12 is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this court while granting bail to him. Merely because various offences have been lugged against the accused under the IPC, 1860 under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and so also under the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefit which has been granted to co-accused. If the accused are kept behind bars for a longer period, certainly the family members of the accused who are dependent to eke out their livelihood from the sources of this accused, would be ruined in the society. On all these premise, the learned counsel for the appellant/Accused No.12 seeks to allow the appeal and consequently to set aside the impugned order passed by the Special Court and consequently grant bail to the accused as sought for. 14. Learned counsel Shri Anees Ali Khan for the appellant in Crl.A.No.496/2021/Accused No.16 has taken me through the involvement of this accused as well as commission of offences as narrated in the FIR and so also the charge-sheeted materials. But there is no direct overt act attributed against Accused No.16 to commit offences by hatching a criminal conspiracy with regard to destruction of properties and also setting fire by entering into the house of the complainant who has given a complaint before the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. relating to the incident that had occurred on 11.08.2020. But complaint came to be registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. as on 13.08.2020 after a lapse of almost three days. But complaint came to be registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. as on 13.08.2020 after a lapse of almost three days. Thereby, the criminal law was set into motion. But there is no direct overt act attributed against Accused No.16 to commit offences as narrated in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Agency by collecting so many materials and material objects and subjecting them to PF. But this accused is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Some of the co-accused have already been released on bail in Crl.A.No.381/2021 dated 20.04.2021 by imposing certain suitable conditions. Moreover, this accused as well as the co-accused in Crl.A.No.381/2021 who have been granted bail, are in a similar footing as regards commission of offences. Therefore, the principles of parity be extended to Accused No.16 as well for granting bail to this accused by allowing this appeal and consequently set aside the impugned order passed by the Special Court in Spl.C.No.758/2020 by order dated 23.02.2021. 15. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 who has filed objections in detail in both appeals referring to the material collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. The first information report has been recorded based upon the complaint filed by Pavan Kumar T who is arraigned as Respondent No.2 in these matters. The informant ran to the top floor of his house to escape from the clutches of the accused persons in order to save his life as well as to protect his family members. But the very Respondent No.2 who is the gravamen/complainant, has not participated in these proceedings despite of being granted an opportunity for his say in writing to the appeals preferred by appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 relating to the case in Cr.No.208/2020. The learned Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 has referred to the material objects which have been seized by the I.O and also subjected to PF in PF No.82/2020, 106/2020, 127/2020 and 133/2020. These are the material objects seized by the I.O. based upon the voluntary statements of the accused persons who had acted in conspiracy with these appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 for commission of offences, which is reflected from the material collected by the I.O during the course of investigation. These are the material objects seized by the I.O. based upon the voluntary statements of the accused persons who had acted in conspiracy with these appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 for commission of offences, which is reflected from the material collected by the I.O during the course of investigation. In the objection statement, he has specifically contended that the informant namely Pavan Kumar T is a relative of a sitting MLA Shri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy and the accused Nos.12 and 16 have played an active role in attacking the house of the complainant as well as the house of the said MLA. Hence, Accused Nos.12 and 16 had involved with other accused in order to hatch a criminal conspiracy to commit offences. CW-2, CW-3, CW-4, CW-5, CW-11, CW-21 to CW-28 and other witnesses have categorically identified the presence of Accused No.12 being armed with a wooden club to destroy the house of the complainant. Further, Accused No.16 had armed with an iron rod and also petrol filled bottles and had involved in destroying the house of the complainant. Hence, the learned Spl. PP for Respondent No.1 contends that both Accused Nos.12 and 16 do not deserve to be granted bail in this appeal. 16. However, merely because accused nos.12 and 16 were present at the scene of occurrence, at this stage, it cannot be held that both of them had also participated with other accused to commit offences as narrated in the charge-sheet and also as stated in the FIR. But the names of appellants/Accused No.12 and Accused No.16 neither finds place in the FIR nor in the complaint filed by the complainant/Respondent No.2 nor there are any allegations that they had caused damage to the property. 17. At a cursory glance of the materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation, it is seen that statements of several witnesses have been recorded. But it is said that though the witnesses have categorically identified Accused No.12 and Accused No.16 had also participated with other accused in order to destroy the house of the informant namely Pavan Kumar T who is a relative of a sitting MLA Shri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy of Pulikeshinagar Constituency, Bengaluru City, as already stated, the I.O. has thoroughly investigated the case and collected abundant material and so also held mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and so also collected material objects under Property form. Therefore, investigation has been held by the I.O. and charge-sheet laid against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is the domain vested with the Investigating Agency to lay the charge-sheet as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is said that once charge-sheet has been laid against the accused by collecting abundant material and merely because laying of a charge-sheet against the accused and even collected several material documents and several material objects, it cannot be said that there are strong prima facie materials against the accused for commission of an offence. It is the duty vested with the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence to secure conviction. But all the materials secured by the I.O. require to be tested by the witnesses as Examination-in-chief on the part of the prosecution as well as stands for cross-examination by the defence counsel. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot dwell in detail as regards the allegation or the guilt against the accused. Charge-sheet laid is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. as under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by following the requisite conditions. But the said requisite conditions have to be established by the prosecution during the course of the trial. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to state that, at this stage that it does not require any detailed discussion while considering the present appeals filed by the appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 to consider their bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Special Court in Spl.C.No.758/2020 arising in Cr.No.208/2020 registered by the Devarajeevanahalli P.S. 18. The charge-sheeted materials reveal various offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and so also such other offences under the relevant provisions of law which indicates in the charge-sheeted column and so also in the FIR recorded by the State House Officer on receipt of the complaint from Respondent No.2/Pavan Kumar T. Therefore, it is said that each and every ingredients of the said offences ought to be established by the prosecution and it is the domain vested with the prosecution alone. The domain is vested with the defence to subject the witnesses for cross-examination and it is the duty of the defence counsel to establish the case whether the accused have participated in the incident as contended by the prosecution. Therefore, at this stage, it does not require any detailed discussion while considering the present appeals preferred by the appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. 19. It is relevant to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 by referring to the abundant materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. But, the court should avoid elaborate documentation of merits while dealing with the bail petition filed by the accused. Moreover, the court cannot go into the details of the material evidence to find out whether the evidence will be sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused. But what is necessary is the satisfaction about the prima facie case and not an exhaustive exploration of merits in the order itself, for consideration of the bail petition filed by the accused. For instance, some guidelines have been laid down in various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as to how a bail petition has to be considered by courts of law, while granting bail. The same has to be guided by some consideration, that is to say, the gravity of the crime/case, the character of the evidence and so also the material evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim/informant/complainant and so also the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. The likelihood of the accused fleeing away from justice and the possibility of tampering the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration and it is based upon the materials specifically which have been collected by the Investigating Officer in order to lay the charge-sheet. But courts must not undertake meticulous examination of the material evidence collected during the course of investigation, but it should be according to the given facts and circumstances of the case. But courts must not undertake meticulous examination of the material evidence collected during the course of investigation, but it should be according to the given facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case on hand, a mob of 500 to 600 people had gathered near the house of the complainant and had thereby caused damage to his house by setting fire to the house and there was vandalism created by the accused. In the present appeals on hand, detailed documentation is not required in respect of appellants/Accused Nos.12 and 16 and it is not required to dwell into each material in detail to consider their bail petitions. 20. From the substance of the contentions made by the learned counsel Shri S. Balakrishnan for Accused No.12 and the learned counsel Shri Anees Ali Khan for Accused No.16 relating to the offences lugged against them, it is opined that both Accused Nos.12 and 16 are deserving for bail. Consequently, Crl.A.No.479/2021 and Crl.A.No.496/2021 deserve to be allowed and the respective impugned orders passed by the Special Judge ought to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid reasons as well as in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that the appeals deserve for consideration. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Crl.A.No.479/2021 preferred by the appellant/Accused No.12 and Crl.A.No.496/2021 preferred by the appellant/Accused No.16 under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 are hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.12.2020 in Crl.Misc.No.7048/2020 and the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 in Spl.C.No.758/2020, both passed by the LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru are hereby set aside. Consequent upon setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Special Judge, the bail petitions filed by Accused No.12 and Accused No.16 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions: i) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-each with likesum two sureties each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, i.e., in Spl.C.No.758/2020. ii) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses. iii) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall appear before the court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail. ii) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses. iii) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall appear before the court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail. iv) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. v) Appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City without prior permission from the competent court of law. If the appellants in both appeals/Accused Nos.12 and 16 violate any of the above conditions, the bail order granted to them shall automatically stand ceased.