- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIREDDY S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.89, CHIKKAMANGALA MAIN ROAD, NEAR ST GASPER SCHOOL, DODDANAGAMANGALA, ELECTRONICS CITY, BENGALURU-560 100. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUSEL FOR SRI G.M.SHARATH KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. RAVIKUMAR M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE MADDURAPPA MADDURAPPA BUILDING NEAR NARAYAN SCHOOL, BEGURU HOBLI, DODDANAGAMANGALA ELECTRONICS CITY, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 BENGALURU-560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI SRINIVAS MURTHY R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) CRL.A FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) ALLOW THE PRESENT CRL.A BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 24.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN CRL.MISC.NO.11038/2025. b) GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.360/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN PARAPPANA GRAHARA P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 318(4) OF BNS, 2023, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CCH-71, CITY COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.11038/2025 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) (for short 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to their rank before the trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of complaint filed by one Ravikumar M, the Parappana Agrahara Police have registered case in Crime No.360/2025 against the accused-Munireddy and others for the commission of offence under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellant had filed application under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail. Same came to be rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the rejection of bail application, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable under law, as the learned Special Judge has mechanically invoked Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, without undertaking the mandatory examination as to whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie offence under this Act. The complaint does not disclose even an iota of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 specific details regarding date, time, place and nature of the alleged caste-based abuse, nor does it specify the exact word allegedly used so as to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. In the absence of such particulars, the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not satisfied. The learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that the allegation emanate from a purely civil transaction dated 15.05.2014 relating to alleged reciprocal assurances regarding road access and allotment of a site, the enforcement of which, if at all, lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The initiation of criminal proceedings is a clear misuse of criminal process to give criminal colour to a Civil dispute. The registered sale deed itself does not disclose any such assurances or promises as alleged in the complaint. The property in question has admittedly not been subjected to conversion or formation of sites and even assuming that such promises existed, the remedy, if any, lies in enforcement of the promissory contract through civil proceedings, and not by invocation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 of penal provisions. The complaint itself alleges that the appellant and the family members have subjected the complainant for harassment for nearly 10 years. However, criminal complaint has been lodged only in the year 2025, resulting in inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly eleven years. Such delay strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. The timing of the complaint clearly indicates that the allegations are afterthought, apparently triggered by the substantial increase in real estate value and appears to have been initiated with an ulterior motive to coerce and pressurize the appellant to succumb to illegal and extraneous demands. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow this appeal. 5. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAJAN SKARIA v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 2249. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri Srinivas Murthy R and learned High Court Government Pleader. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by one Ravi Kumar M., the Parappana Agrahara Police have registered the case in Crime No.360/2025 against the accused and others for the commission of offence under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The FIR reveals the date of offence commencing from 15.05.2014 till 05.12.2025. In the FIR, the complainant has not stated anything as to the delay in filing this complaint. 7. On careful examination of the complaint filed by the complainant, the accused has not abused the complainant before public. The names of the public is not disclosed in the complaint. On plain reading of the complaint at this stage, there are no sufficient prima facie materials to constitute the offence under the penal provision of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Other remaining offences are not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that there is a civil dispute between the accused and the complainant in respect of right of easement. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, prior antecedents of the appellant, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to allow this appeal with conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed; (ii) The order dated 24.12.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.11038/2025 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 71), is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 is allowed, subject to following conditions: a. The appellant/accused shall be released on bail on executing a self-bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the event of his - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4668 CRL.A No. 47 of 2026 arrest in Crime No.360/2025, Parappana Agrahara Police; b. The appellant/accused shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner; c. The appellant/accused shall assist the Investigating Officer for his investigation; d. The appellant/accused shall not indulge in similar offence. Registry directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13