- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15492 CRL.A No. 100618 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100618 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT) BETWEEN: RAGHAVENDRA S/O. RAMESH NAIK, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #213 HULEKAR ROAD, HUTGAR GANESHNAGAR, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT’S PSI, SIRSI RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. SHEETAL D/O. SURESH JOGALEKAR, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. OTHER/PRIVATE JOB, R/O. INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANAVASI ROAD, SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP R1; SRI. SURESH S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE ORDER DATED 04/09/2025 IN CRL. MISC. NO.305/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN/ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.103/2025 OF SIRSI RURAL PS FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 69, 352, 351(2), 49, 3(5) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 AND SECTION 3(1)(R),3(1)(W), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, IN THE EVENT OF ARREST BY THE POLICE AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15492 CRL.A No. 100618 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2025 wherein the Anticipatory bail was rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste, she came in contact with one Raghavendra Ramesh Naik through Instagram and gradually she became friend. Both were started loving each other. It is further stated that, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse for the past two years. On 24.01.2024, she had informed him that she become pregnant. At that time, he refused to marry her. 3. On 30.04.2025, when she informed the said fact to accused Nos.3 and 4, they insulted her and scolded her in one or the other pretext, therefore, a complaint came to be registered against all the accused. The investigation is under progress. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15492 CRL.A No. 100618 of 2025 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the averments of the complaint are baseless and false and it is concocted for the purpose of implicating the appellant in a false case. 5. It is further submitted that, the averments of the complaint though appears to be made out for the purpose of implicating the appellant, the fact remains that, there are some other extraneous reasons for the said quarrel. In fact, the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the said complaint. 6. It is further submitted that, except the statement of the victim no other independent witnesses have spoken about the incident of scolding by naming the caste of the victim. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions, the appellant would abide by conditions in the event of his release on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that, the averments of the complaint and statement made by the victim clearly indicates that, she had been subjected to sexual intercourse - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15492 CRL.A No. 100618 of 2025 on several occasions, consequently, she became pregnant. When she narrated the incident, the appellant refused to marry her. All the family members of the appellant started scolding her by naming her caste and assaulted her. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant the bail. 8. Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submitted that, the ingredients of Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231 and other provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20152 squarely applicable to the case. Therefore, the relief of Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as there is a bar under Section 18A of SC/ST (POA) Act. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse on several occasions on the false promise of marriage. Thereafter, he 1 For short ‘BNS, 2023’ 2 For short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15492 CRL.A No. 100618 of 2025 refused to marry her on account of that, she belongs to Schedule Caste. As there are ingredients in the complaint to attract the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, there is a bar under Section 18A of the Act. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant Anticipatory bail. 10. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is rejected. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the bail application, if the petitioner is surrendered before the said Court in accordance with law. (iii) The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE PJ/CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15492 CRL.A No. 100618 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [RAGHAVENDRA S/O RAMESH NAIK VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER] 25.11.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO On the date of disposal of this appeal, in operative portion in point No.(ii) it was mentioned that if the petitioner is surrendered before the said Court, the Court shall consider the said bail application on the same day. However, it was not mentioned in the operative portion of the said order by oversight. Hence, it may be rectified and read as follows:- “(ii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the bail application on the same day, if the petitioner is surrendered before the said Court in accordance with law.” The registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith. Sd/- ( S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 131