- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29556 CRL.A No. 1188 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1188 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. N S NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. LATE. N.M. SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. N.S.RANGANATH S/O. LATE. N.M. SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. N.S PARAVATHI BAI W/O. LATE. N.M. SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS THE APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT. NO. 304, 10TH CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI BADAVANE TIPTUR 572 201 4. SUNANDA G @ PINKI C/O. RANGANATH N.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT. GANESHNILAYA 1ST MAIN, NEAR PWD QUARTERS BASAVANAGUDI, SHIMOGA – 577 204 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. THUSHANATH C V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29556 CRL.A No. 1188 of 2025 BANGALORE-560 001 2. M.R. BHARATHI W/O. N.S. NAVEEN KUMAR D/O. RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. VINAYAKANAGAR BEHIND TRIMURTHI THEATER TIPTUR TOWN – 572 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.VANITHA G. M., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.624/2025 BY THE HONBLE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND TO RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.98/2025 BY TIPTUR TOWN P.S FOR THE O/P/U/S 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 74, 85, 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND U/S 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE 3RD ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, TUMKUR DIST. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.98/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 74, 85, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29556 CRL.A No. 1188 of 2025 3(2)(va) of The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 married Sri.N.S.Naveen Kumar on 23.11.2023 who belongs to Kshatriya community. At the time of marriage, there are lot of disputes not only in respect of the method of which the marriage has to be performed, but also, in respect of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that the husband of respondent No.2, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law were demanding to pay additional dowry for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/. When she expressed her inability to pay the said amount, she was scolded by naming her caste and also threatened her with dire consequences. 3. On 29.04.2025, at about 1.15 P.M when she had been to her matrimonial home, she was not only scolded, but also, insulted and assaulted by her husband, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Therefore, she lodges a complaint. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29556 CRL.A No. 1188 of 2025 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant Nos.1 and 2 have been allowed on bail after having been arrested by the respondent-Police. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The remaining appellant Nos.3 and 4 are the accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 5. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for State vehemently opposed the submissions stating that there is a bar under Section 18(A) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected. 6. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also adopted the argument of the learned High Court Government Pleader and she prays to reject the bail. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, there are some definite allegations made against the appellants. Moreover, in the complaint it is stated that the respondent No.2 has not only been subjected to cruelty, but also, insulted by naming her caste. Prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29556 CRL.A No. 1188 of 2025 that the appellant Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled for bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is rejected. ii. The liberty is reserved to the appellant Nos.3 and 4 to approach the Trial Court on surrendering themselves may apply for regular bail. If such application is filed the Trial Court is directed to consider the same in view of the bail granted to other two appellants. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3