- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35906 CRL.A No. 1528 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1528 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SHAMUKHAPPA @ SHANMUKHA S/O BADIGER DUGGAPPA COOLIE WORK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O 1091, 2ND MAIN 10TH CROSS, S.J.M. NAGARA DAVANAGERE -577 001 &APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.J.SUNKAPUR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY GANDHINAGAR PS DAVANAGERE, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.560 001 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35906 CRL.A No. 1528 of 2025 2. ANANDA S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA AGED 43 YEARS LABOURER, R/O NO 134 5TH CROSS, SJM NAGARA DAVANAGERE-577 001 &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN CRL.MISC.NO.642/2025 DTD 14.07.2025. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35906 CRL.A No. 1528 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.642/2025 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of offence punishable under Section 118(1), 352, 351(2), (3) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint of 25.06.2025 stating that on 23.06.2025 at about 11.30 A.M he went to the house of his wife situated in Rajiv Gandhi Block, the appellant was inside the house along with his wife, when he questioned the same, the appellant herein abused him in a filthy language stating that he was happy with the wife of respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 should not interfere in such a matter and started assaulting him with a tile stone and threatened him with dire consequences. In the meantime, he also scolded the respondent No.2 by naming his caste. The respondent No.2 after the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35906 CRL.A No. 1528 of 2025 alleged incident, obtained treatment in Chigateri District Hospital, Davanagere, and lodged a complaint against the appellant. 3. The respondent 3 Police have registered a case in Crime No.62/2025 for the offence stated supra. The investigation is under progress. 4. Heard Sri. G.J. Sunkapur, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Pushpalatha B., Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.2 had assaulted the appellant herein and the appellant sustained injuries and he took treatment in Chigateri District Hospital, Davanagere, and lodged a complaint against respondent No.2. It is further submitted that when the respondent No.2 was fighting with his wife, the appellant interfered in the said matter and tried to convince the matter. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 being a drunkard used the foul language and abused him and thereafter he assaulted the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35906 CRL.A No. 1528 of 2025 herein. Therefore, the allegations made against the appellant are bald and baseless. Hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per Contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, vehemently, controverted the said submission and further submitted that the allegations are severe in nature, the appellant has scolded by naming the caste of respondent No.2. Such being the fact, if the application is allowed, it is contrary to the Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, in the complaint it is stated that the appellant stated to be the paramour wife of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had been to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35906 CRL.A No. 1528 of 2025 the house of his wife, where the appellant was residing along with his wife. After seeing respondent No.2, the appellant starting abusing in filthy language and also scolded by naming the caste. When the averments are made out in the complaint, there is a bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26