- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6304 OF 2026 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. BETTASWAMY S/O CHALUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A K B STORE, NEAR AKASH THEATOR, AMBI CIRCLE, RAJAGOPALNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY J.R..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILIDNG, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. VENKATESH S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO. 229, 6TH CROSS, NEAR BYRAVESHWARA TEMPLE, BASAPPANAKATTE, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 RAJAGOPALNAGAR, BANGALORE 560 058 …RESPONDENTS (BY Smt.WAHEEDA H M, HCGP FOR R1, SRI SHREEDHAR KOTRASHETTI8, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.113/2026 BY RAJAGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 351(2),352 OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST(POA). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is father-in-law of defacto complainant/respondent No.2, is before this Court seeking his release in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0113/2026 registered before the respondent No.1/police pending on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. A complaint dated 28.03.2026 came to be lodged by respondent No.2, the defacto complainant, alleging that he had married to the daughter of petitioner and that he is residing with his wife in a house situated opposite to that of his father-in-law the petitioner herein. It is further alleged that there has been matrimonial discord between him and his wife for the past six months, primarily on account of her continuous phone chats with outsider which frequently led to quarrels between them. It is stated that such disputes culminated in an incident dated 16.03.2026 at about 9.30 p.m., wherein the petitioner is alleged to have abused respondent No.2 by referring to his caste, thereby humiliating him. The complainant asserts that the said incident was recorded on video and that he is prepared to produce the same as and when required. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.0113/2026 has been registered by respondent No.1–Police for the offences alleged therein. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prima facie case is made out so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent No.1–Police in connection with the aforesaid crime. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that the alleged incident has taken place on a public road and, therefore, the requirement of the occurrence being in a place “within public view” stands satisfied. He, however, fairly submits that the complaint does not mention the names of any independent persons who witnessed the incident, though it is stated that the occurrence has been videographed and the same can be produced before the Court. He also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, reported in (2025) SCC Online 186 referring to paragraphs 7.2 and 8, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the expression “any place within public view” occurring under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Referring to the said paragraphs, he contends that since the alleged incident occurred on a public road, it squarely falls within the ambit and mischief of the Act. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of the petition. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State opposing the petition submits that there is bar under Section 18 of the Act for grant of the bail. Therefore, she seeks for rejection of the petition. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. The allegation made in the complaint reads as under: "F
ೇನ ಾಾಂಶೆೆಂದೆ ¦ಾದುಾರಾದ ೕ ೆಂಕೇ  ಗಂಗಣ, , 31 ವಷ ರವರು ಾ ೆ!ೆ "ಾಜಾ$ %ೕ&ದ ದೂೆೆಂದೆ ಾನು (ೕಲ*ಂಡ ,-ಾಸದ/0,. ಹು23%ಂದಲೂ ನನ4 ತಂೆ-6ಾ7ಯ 9ೊ6ೆಯ/0 ಾಸಾ$ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. ಾನು ೕವನ
ಾ*$ ;ೕಟನ/0 =ೆಲವ> ?ಾ@ ಆ$
ೆಲಸವನು4 Bಾ&
ೊಂ&ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. ನಮD ತಂೆ-6ಾ7ಯವ>!ೆ ಇಬGರು ಮಕ*HದುI Jದಲೆಯವನು ನನ4 ಅಣL Mೋ
ೇ ಆ$ರು6ಾ:ೆ, ಈತನು ಮಂಗಳ ರವರ 9ೊ6ೆಯ/0 ,ಾಹವನು4 Bಾ&
ೊಂಡು ಅವರು ಪ6ೆQೕಕಾ$ ತುಮಕೂ>ನ/.. ಾಸಾ$ರು6ಾ:ೆ, ಎರಡೇಯವನು ಾಾ$ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ, ಾನು ಎS.ಎS.ಎT. ಯ ವೆ!ೆ ಇೇ ?ೆಂಗಳUರು ನಗರದ/0 ,ಾQVಾQಸವನು4 Bಾ&ದುI, ನಂತರ ನನ!ೆ ',ಾQVಾQಸದ/0 ಆಸW: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 ಇಲ0XರುವYದ>ಂದ ಾನು ನನ4 ,ಾQVಾಸವನು4 ಮುಂದುವೆರುವYXಲ0.. ಈ!ೆZ ಾನು (ಂ[ ಾಹನದ/0 =ೆ\ವ] ಆ$
ೆಲಸವನು4 Bಾ&
ೊಂ&ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ ಈ!ೆZ ಸುBಾರು 13-14 ವಷಗಳ ^ಂೆ ಮಂಜು-ಾ  ರವರ ಕಟುಂಬದವರು ಬಸಪ_ನಕೆ3ಯ/0ರುವ ನಮD ಮೆಯ/ ?ಾ&!ೆ!ೆ ಾಸಾ$ದI ಸಮಯದ/0 ಮಂಜು-ಾ ರವರು ನನ!ೆ ಪ>ಚಯಾ$ ಾನು ವಕ*/ಗ ಜಾಂಗ
ೆ* ೇ>ದ ಮಂಜು-ಾ ರವರನು4 aೕbಸುb:ದುI ಅವರು ಸಹ ನನ4ನು4 aೕbಸುb:ದIರು. ನಂತರ ಾವY aೕb Bಾಡುವ ,cಾರ ಮಂಜುಳ ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವ>!ೆ ಇಷ3,ರ/ಲ0, ಆದI>ಂದ ಾವY ಲd BಾQೇe ಆ!ೋಣೆಂದು bೕBಾ% 2015 ೇ ಾ/ನ/.. ಆXಚುಂಚನ$>ಯ ೇವಾfನದ/0 ವಕ*/ಗ ಜಾಂಗ
ೆ* ೇ>ದ ಮಂಜು-ಾ  ರವರನು4 ಮದುೆಾ$ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ, ನಂತರ ಾನು ನನ4 "ೆಂಡb ಮಂಜು-ಾ ರವೊಂX!ೆ ಪ6ೆQೕಕಾ$ ಾಸಾ$ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ, ನಂತರ ನಮ!ೆ ಒಂದು "ೆಣುL ಮಗು ಜನನಾ$ರುತ:ೆ, ಈ!ೆZ 2021 ೇ ಾ/ನ/0 Mಾh =ೌ ಸಮಯದ/0 ನನ!ೆ ಅಪjತಾ$ದುI, ಈ ಸಮಯದ/0 ನನ4 "ೆಂಡbಯು ಅವರ ತಂೆ- 6ಾ7ಾಸಾ$ರುವ ಮನ!ೆ "ೋ$ರು6ಾ:-ೆ, ನನ!ೆ ಆೋಗQ ಎMಾ0 ಸ>ಾದ ನಂತರ 2024 ೇ ಇಸ,ಯ/0 ಾನು ನನ4 "ೆಂಡb, ನನ4 ಮಗಳ 9ೊ6ೆಯ/0 ಲ!ೆZೆಯ ಾಮಯQ ಬ=ಾವ ೆಯ/0ನ ಗಂಗಣL ರವರ ?ಾ&!ೆ ಮೆಯ/0 ಪ6ೆQೕಕಾ$ ಾಸಾರು6ೆ:ೕೆ, ನಂತರ ಕ-ೆದ ಒಂದು ವಷXಂದ ನಮD Bಾವಾದ ?ೆಟ3ಾkl ರವರು ಾಸ,ರುವ ಚಂದಕMಾ ರವರ Bಾ/ೕಕತkದ ಮೆ ಮುಂVಾಗ,
ೆ. ೊ3ೕ]. ಅಂ ಸಕT, ಆ
ಾ ಾWೕS ಹb:ರ ,-ಾಸದ/0. ನನ4 "ೆಂಡb "ಾಗೂ ಮಗ-ೆUಂX!ೆ ಎಲ0ರೂ ಒಾ3$mೕ ಾಸಾ$ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. ^ೕ$ರುಾಗ, ಕ-ೆದ ಆರು bಂಗಳnಗHಂದ ನನ4 "ೆಂಡb ?ೇೆ-?ೇೆಯವರ 9ೊ6ೆಯ/0 oೕ ನ/0 BಾತಾಡುವYದು cಾ[ BಾಡುವYದು Bಾಡುb:ದIರು ಈ ,cಾರಾ$ ನನಗೂ ನನ4 "ೆಂಡb "ಾಗೂ ನನ4 Bಾವ ರವ>ಗೂ ಸಣLಪYಟ3 ಜಗಳ ನ=ೆಯುb:ತು:, ಇೇ ,cಾರಾ$ ಾನು X:16.03.2026 ಸಮಯ ಾb 9:30 ಗಂೆಯ ಸಮಯದ/0, ಾವY ಾಸ,ದI ಮೆಯ ಮುಂVಾಗದ ಾವಜ%ಕ ರೆ:ಯ/0 ಈ ,cಾರವನು4 ಪ4ಾಗ ನಮD Bಾವನವಾದ ?ೆಟ3ಾkl ರವರು %ೕನು "ೊMೆಯ BಾXಗ, %ೕನು Wೕಳn 9ಾbಯವನು ಾನು (ೕMಾpbಾದ ವಕ*/ಗ ಜಾಂಗ
ೆ* ೇ>ದವನು %ೕನು
ೇಳ9ಾbಾದ "ೊMೆಯ BಾX!ೆ ಜಾಂಗ
ೆ* ೇ>ದವನು ಎಂದು ಾವಜ%ಕಾ$ ನನ4ನು4 9ಾb %ಂದೆ Bಾ&, ?ಾ7!ೆ ಬಂದ "ಾ!ೆ ಸುH ಮಗನQ, ?ೋH ಮಗೆ ಎಂದು ?ೈದು, %ನ4ನು4 ೕವಸ^ತ ಡುವYXಲ0ೆಂದು ?ೆದ>
ೆ "ಾWರು6ಾ:ೆ, ಅವನು4 ನನ4 J?ೈT ನ/0. ,&ೕrೕ ೇ
ಾs Bಾ&
ೊಂ&ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ ಸದ> - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 ,&ೕrೕವನು4 ,cಾರ ೆ ಸಮಯದ/0 "ಾಜರುಪ&ಸು6ೆ:ೕೆ, ಆದI>ಂದ ನನ4 9ಾbಯ ಬ!ೆZ, Wೕ-ಾ$ Bಾತಾ& %ೕನು "ೊMೆಯ, BಾX!ೆ ಎಂದು %ಂXದ ?ೆಟ3ಾkl ರವರ ,ರುದt ಸೂಕ:
ಾನೂನು ಕಮ
ೈ!ೊಳnu?ೇ
ೆಂದು
ೊಟ3 ದೂರು." 8. A perusal of the aforesaid complaint and the allegations contained therein would indicate that respondent No.2- the defacto complainant has been married to the petitioner’s daughter for the past seven years. It appears that there has been certain matrimonial discord between respondent No.2 and his wife, which has allegedly resulted in an acrimonious situation within the family. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that on 16.03.2026 at about 9.30 p.m., he abused respondent No.2 on a public road by referring to his caste, thereby allegedly attracting the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, at paragraph Nos.58, 59 and 60 and 61 has held as under: 58. We say so for the reason that all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. There is nothing in the transcript of the uploaded video to indicate even prime facie that those allegations were made by the appellant only on account of the fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. From the nature of the allegations made by the appellant, it appears that he is at inimical terms with the complainant. His intention may be to malign or defame him but not on the ground or for the reason that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 59. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Hitesh Verma (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced below: “13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste. xxxxxxxxx 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763], this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar” Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” (Emphasis supplied) 60. Thus, the dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. We say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act, 1989 was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status. a. Meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate” appearing in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 61. The words “with intent to humiliate” as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the “upper castes” over the “lower castes/untouchables”, the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’, etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989." 10. Thus, it is well settled that not every abusive would attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complaint must disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, including that the alleged insult or intimidation was made in a place “within public view”. 11. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 has held as under: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 "6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code. 6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial." 12. In the present case, having regard to the averments made in the complaint and the background of matrimonial relations between the parties, and in the absence of any specific assertion that the alleged incident was witnessed by any member of public, this Court is of the view that the necessary ingredients of the offence are not made out. Accordingly, it does not appear that a prima facie case has - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 been established so as to attract the rigour of the aforesaid provisions. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The petitioner herein shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0113/2026 registered before the respondent No.1/police pending on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 351(2) and 352 of BNSS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to following conditions: a) The accused-petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The accused-petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24734 CRL.P No. 6304 of 2026 order and extend full co-operation in the investigation of the matter. c) The accused-petitioner shall apply and obtain regular bail before Trial Court with ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. d) The accused-petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. e) The accused-petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off. In case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72