- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1634 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMIDEVI C W/O MADESHA @ MAHADEVASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 439 2. SHRI BASAVARAJU S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 439 3. SMT LAKSHMI W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571439 4. SHRI AKASH K S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/A CHUNCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU VILLAGE MIKKERE POST, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA. K.M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUR POLICE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571439 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE BANGALORE 560 001 2. NINGARAJU @ KONDA S/O PUTTABHOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST 571 439 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTSS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.134/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHAMARAJANAGARA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 126(2), 152(2), 181(1), 304, 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 2014 AND SEC.3(2) (v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the anticipatory bail dated 24.06.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.281/2025 by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 152(2), 181(1), 304, 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Amendment of Ordinance 2014 and Sec.3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was constructing a new house adjacent to the house of one Krishnegowda who is the father of accused No.2 and husband of accused No.3. One Prajwal who is none other than son of sister-in-law of the complainant was assisting in constructing the house. 3. It is further alleged that Amulya @ Puttalakshmi was found missing from her house who is none other than the daughter of son-in-law of Krishnegowda. The said Krishnegowda and along with others started assaulting and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025 abusing by naming the caste of the complainant stating that the said Prajwal had taken the said Amulya along with him for marriage. 4. Further, it was known to Krishnegowda and family that both Prajwal and Amulya married each other. Therefore, the complainant was assaulted and abused by naming the caste on the pretext that he is the person who helped them to elope etc. 5. Heard Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that on reading of the entire averments of the complaint, there is no whisper regarding mentioning the name of the caste. Therefore, the appellants are enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently submitted that the appellants have assaulted and scolded by naming the caste of the complainant. Hence, there is a bar under Section 18(A) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, the appellants have not only assaulted the complainant but also scolded by naming his caste. The averments of the complaint contained the ingredients of the provisions of ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’, as there is a bar stipulated under Section 18-A of the said Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them anticipatory bail. However, if the appellants are surrendered before the Trial Court, the liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to dispose of the said application on the same day itself. Ordered, accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3