- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1969 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MALLESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE MALLAPPA, 2. SMT. JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O MALLESH, 3. SRI. MANU.M, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O LATE MALLESH, 4. SRI. MANJUNATH.M, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O MALLAPPA, 5. SRI. PUTTAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAPPA, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT YADAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008. 6. SRI. DARSHAN S., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O SHIVAKUMAR M. B. R/AT NO.784, 14TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, ITI LAYOUT, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 MALLATHA HALLI, NAGARABHAVI, BANAGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 056. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. MANJUNATHA S., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVAIAH, R/AT DOOR NO.13/300, AMBEDKAR BADAWANE, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL SPP. FOR R1, V/O DATED:10.11.2025, R2 PRESENT BEFORE COURT AND NOT ENGAGED ANY COUNSEL.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHAMARAJANAGARA IN CRL.MISC NO.367/2025 DATED 15.09.2025 AND MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR NO.157/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 352, 351(2), 3(5) OF THE BNS 2023 AND U/S 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 1989 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.09.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.367/2025 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to the same rank and status before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2- Manjunatha.S, Charamarajanagar Town Police registered case in Crime No.157/2025 against accused 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under sections 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Appellants have filed application under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail. Same came to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by this order, appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Respondent No.2 is present before this Court and has also filed statement of objection contending that in view of Section 18 of SC & ST (POA) Act, this appeal is not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 and lodged a complaint. Same was not registered by the police in view of political influence by the appellants. The second respondent approached them so many times requesting for registration of FIR. The attempt made by the second respondent went in vain. Whenever the second respondent visited to Police station, the SHO said that Investigating Officer not available due to strike, Mahila jatha, village festival etc. Hence, the second respondent signed in the police station visitor's diary. Whenever the second respondent visited police station, he would spend his entire day to get the First Information Report registered. The same is recorded in CCTV of the police station. Due to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 political pressure and influence of the appellants, the first respondent intentionally prolonged to register FIR. Hence the delay in filing FIR is not intentional. Finally they lodged the complaint by changing the date. Indirectly the first respondent police helped to the appellants. During that time, appellants made efforts to hook up respondent No.2 in a criminal case by approaching Additional Superintendent of Police at Mysore. They tried to lodge a false case against respondent No.2. Hence the respondent No.2 protected himself by an injunction order granted by the Vacation Court i.e., the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Chamarajanagara in MC.No.01/2025 by producing the order before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mysore. Same is suppressed by appellants. The second respondent married the first appellant's daughter and they were in love with each other and got married in a temple at Chamarajanagar. Same was brought to the notice of the first appellant. Hence, they started to harass the second respondent due to caste reason. There are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 prima facie materials to attract the alleged offences. Therefore appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. On all these grounds, it is sought for dismissal of this appeal. 5. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. 6. The alleged incident took place on 09.05.2025. The complaint came to be filed on 23.08.2025. Even after the lapse of 60 days, the Investigating Officer has not submitted the charge sheet against the accused as required under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of SC & ST (POA) Rules, 1995. 7. Respondent No.2 submits that he married the daughter of Appellant No.1 in Sub-registrar Office, Chamarajanagara. The certificate of registration of Hindu Marriage Act also produced. Same reveals that he got married on 20.02.2025. Learned counsel for appellants has produced the copy of the plaint pertaining to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 M.C.No.585/2025 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore which reveals that Smt. Ashwini has filed petition under Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare that the marriage took place on 10.02.2025 at Bhadrakali and Veerabhadreshwara temple, Chamarajanagara. Consequently, the said marriage registered on 20.02.2025 at Sub-Registrar Office, Chamarajanagara as null and void and does not bind the petitioner and hence it is sought to dissolve the said voidable marriage. In the plaint averments, it is alleged that respondent No.2 in this case, playing fraud, misrepresentation and coercion without the free will of the petitioner Smt. Ashwini, managed the officials of the Sub- Registrar Office to register the marriage of the petitioner with the him by fabricating the photos and other documents. Appellants' counsel also produced a copy of the petition filed by respondent No.2-Manjunatha.S against his wife Smt. Ashwini under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, on 17.05.2025 for restitution of conjugal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 rights. The Investigating Officer has not issued notice to the accused under Section 35 of BNS, 2023. In this regard, this Court has passed an order on 25.10.2025 'call for explanation from the Investigating Officer', as he has failed to submit final report as contemplated under Sub- rule (2) of Rule 7 of the SC & ST(POA) Rules 1995. Till this day, Investigating Officer has not submitted any explanation. For this reason, this Court has already granted interim bail as per Order dated 25.10.2025. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Appellants/accused shall be released on bail on executing self-bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.157/2025 by Chamarajanagara Town Police Station. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45433 CRL.A No. 1969 of 2025 (iii) Appellants/accused shall assist the Investigating Officer for investigation. (iv) Appellants/accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (v) Respondent No.2 has made allegation against the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to take necessary legal action against the delinquent Police officials in accordance with law. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29