- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100630 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ANIL TOTAGI S/O. SHIVANAND TOTAGI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. CAFE CENTER BUSINESS, R/O. C/O. SHIVANAND, SADHUNAVAR PLOT, MURKIBHAVI ROAD, BAILHONGAL (RURAL)-581105, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. MR. MAHESH S/O. IRAPPA TOTAGI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.2205, MARADI GALLI, BAILHONGAL-581105, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI N.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SRI. SANTHOSH BABU MADIGAR S/O. BABU, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER/DRIVER, R/O. NAVALAGATTI VILLAGE-581105, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 3. SRI. KUMAR CHANDRAYYA GANACHARI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. CHACHADI VILLAGE-581105, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. SANTOSH BABU MADIGAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. NAVALAGATTI VILLAGE-581105, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. VINAYAK BASAPPA SHIGANAHHALLI, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE IN PVT-FIRM, R/O. AMBADAGATTI VILLAGE-581105, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SRI. SANKET GOPAL ARAVALLI, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. PIJARAGALLI BAILHONGAL-581105, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. SRI. DEEPAK MALIKARJUN BAGEHALLI, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN, R/O. KOTANABARI GALLI, BAILHONGAL-581105, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST BELAGAVI. 8. SRI. RAKESH SHREESHAIL ANGADI, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. AMBADAGATTI VILLAGE-581105, TQ. KITTUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 ARE SERVED.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2025 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BELAGAVI, THE EXCLUSIVE SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED FOR OFFENCES UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 ATROCITIES) ACT, IN CRL.MISC.NO.1053/2025 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CRIME NO.180/2025 REGISTERED WITH BAILHONGAL P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(V-A) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) The appellants are before this Court seeking for regular bail in Crime No.180/2025 of respondent police, registered for the offence punishable under section 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 09.08.2025, the complainant and his friends had been to Green Garden Hotel at Bailhongal, for having dinner. At about 07.30 p.m., when the complainant and his friends - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 were having dinner, Satish Ulavappa Totagi was quarreling with the waiter. The complainant and his friends enquired as to why they were quarrelling each other. Then, the waiter stated that the said Satish had not given money. When they were questioning the waiter, Anil Totagi, appellant No.1 herein is stated to have gone to the place where the incident was being taken place and started quarrelling. The appellant No.2 along with Mahesh Naganur and Ameet Pujari went there and started quarreling with the complainant and others. It is further alleged that the appellants and others scolded them by naming the caste of the complainant and others. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against them. The respondent police have registered the case in Crime No.180/2025. The investigation is under process. Therefore, the appellants are before this Court seeking regular bail. 3. Heard Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Mahantesh S. Hiremath, advocate for respondent No.2 and Sri Praveen Y. Devaraddi, learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material placed before the Court. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and they are the innocent of the alleged offences. The entire allegation rests on accused No.4. Accused No.1 was scolding the complainant by naming the caste and accused No.2 assaulted with stone on the cheek of the complainant. Except those two allegations made against this appellants, other allegations made against them are omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the appellants are cousin brothers. Appellant No.1 is aged about 28 years and appellant No.2 is aged 26 years. They were doing business and permanent residents of their respective addresses given in the cause title and they will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that this is a case and counter - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 case. The respondents are also in judicial custody and they also sustained injuries. They had sustained severe injuries at the hands of the appellants. The overt-acts of these appellants have been narrated in the complaint. Therefore, they are not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 6. The learned HCGP adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that the appeal may be rejected. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears that appellants No.1 and 2 who are the accused No.1 and 2, they had been to have dinner. There was a quarrel which was being taken place in the hotel. These persons interfered and they were enquiring as to why the said incident was being taken place. In the meantime, the complainant and others started quarrelling with the appellants. There were exchanges of verbal abuses and also assaulted each other. The allegations made against these appellants are that, appellant No.1 has scolded by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 naming the caste of the complainant. Appellant No.2 has assaulted with stone on the cheeks of the complainant. However, the allegations made against accused No.4 appears to be serious that, he had assaulted with jambe on various parts of the body and caused injuries. 8. Having considered the impact of the offence and also considering that they are in judicial custody from 14.08.2025, it is appropriate to grant them bail by allowing this appeal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2, are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.180/2025, of respondent police, on executing their personal bonds for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) each, with one surety each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14097 CRL.A No. 100630 of 2025 iii) The appellants shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates without fail. iv) The appellants shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. v) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission. vi) The appellants shall not commit similar or any other criminal offences till disposal of the case. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19