JUDGMENT : M G Uma, J. The appellant - accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short) in the event of their arrest in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur Police Station, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short BNS), Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act (Amend), 2003 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Suresha. 2. Heard Sri.Balaraj V.R., learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: REASONS 4. Accused No.1 has approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. It is the contention of the prosecution that two cattle belonging to the informant were found missing since 04.06.2025. Later they were found dead due to electrocution in the land belonging to accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that accused No.1 and 2 have taken illegal electricity connection to their land and have committed the offence as stated above. 5. It is pertinent to note that, there is not even a whisper about the caste of the complainant or the accused or that the accused have committed any offence under the SC/ST POA Act. But somehow, the Investigating Officer invoked the provisions of special enactment without any basis. The Investigating Officer, who registered the FIR is answerable for invoking the provisions of special enactment without application of mind. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the record of rights pertaining to the land in question. As per this document, accused No.2 along with two others was the owner of the land, where it is stated that the accused have taken electricity connection illegally. Prima-facie, accused No.1 is not the owner of land in question. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the record of rights pertaining to the land in question. As per this document, accused No.2 along with two others was the owner of the land, where it is stated that the accused have taken electricity connection illegally. Prima-facie, accused No.1 is not the owner of land in question. Admittedly, accused No.2 the son of the present appellant is the owner of the land in question along with two others. No prima facie materials are produced to show involvement of the present appellant. 7. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the appellant is required for interrogation or that he is having any criminal antecedent. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellants may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions which will take care of the interest of the prosecution 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.120/2025 of Hanur Police Station. The appellant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The appellant shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; b. The appellant shall not commit similar offences; c. The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.