- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. PRABHA @ PRABHAVATHI, W/O DHARMAPALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. KANTHANNA @ KANTHARAJU, S/O ESHWARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O BYRANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. PADMA @ POORNIMA.N., W/O NATARAJU.G.T., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT GONI TUMAKURU, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 227. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TURUVEKERE P.S., Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 R/P BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 09. 2. JAGADEESH, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT GONI TUMAKURU VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.321/2026 VIDE DATED 03.03.2026; B. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.53/2026 OF TURUVEKERE P.S., FOR AN OFFENCE P/US/ 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(za), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 AND SEC.352, 351(2), 190 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 in Crime No.53/2026 registered by the respondent - police for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(za), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 2015 and Section 352, 351(2) and 190 of BNS 2023, being aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.321/2026 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru. 2. A complaint came to be filed by the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 alleging that on 19.02.2026, when he along with his sister had gone to a temple between 7.20 p.m and 8.00 p.m., accused No.1 viz., Narayanagowda, Son of Govindagowda who was the priest of the said temple and the accused persons / appellants herein had asked them to go out of temple, alleging that they cannot enter inside the temple as they belong to "Hosakulavadi", which is a different caste, and thereby humiliated them in the name of their caste. That - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 the entire episode has been captured in the video. Hence, the complaint. Pursuant to which, the aforesaid case in Crime No.53/2026 for the offences noted above has been registered. 3. The Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the accused / appellants herein in view of bar contained under Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants herein were the devotees who were present in the temple at the time of the incident. They had intervened, when the altercation was taken place between accused No.1 - priest and the defacto complainant - respondent No.2. They have neither abused nor prevented the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 and his sister from entering the Temple. Merely because their presence is found in the video, they have been arrayed as accused persons. He submits that the Aadhar card of the present appellants indicates that they are the local residents and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 they have no reason to have anything to do with the affairs of the temple. He submits that no specific allegation is made against these appellants-accused, except an omnibus statement made therein. He submits that accused No.1 has already been released on bail. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand opposing the appeal submits that presence of the accused/appellants has been recorded in a videograph. Prima facie case has been made out against them. Therefore, the bar contained under Section 18A of Act would apply disentitling them from seeking anticipatory bail. Hence, seeks for rejection of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records. 7. The allegations made in the complaint as noted above indicate that when the defacto complainant - - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 respondent No.2 and his sister had gone inside the Temple, the persons named in the complaint had asked them to go out of the temple as they belonged to "Hosakulavadi". There is considerable force in the submission of the counsel for the appellants that it is highly improbable that the appellants-accused allegedly used specific name of their caste of the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 as 'Hosakulavadi' without there being any material to indicate that they were previously acquainted with defacto complainant - respondent No.2 and name of his caste. 8. It is not the case of the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 that there was any kind of acquaintance or transaction between the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 and accused herein for them to know the specific name of the caste of the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 as 'Hosakulavadi'. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants herein had merely gone to the temple as the devotees and they had no other interest in the matter. The complaint do not indicate anything else other than the appellants herein allegedly abusing him. 10. That apart, accused No.1 is stated to have already been released on bail. 11. The overall facts and circumstance of the matter, particularly with regard to allegation of defacto complainant - respondent No.2 being asked to expiate for having come inside the temple, could not have been uttered by the appellants, that too, in the absence of any material to indicate the appellants being aware of the caste of defacto complainant - respondent No.2. 12. The aforesaid submission appears to be plausible and acceptable as no prima facie case as against the accused/appellants herein appeared to have been made out. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 13. The Apex court in the case of 'SHAJAN SKARIA VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER', 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 2249 has held as follows: 80. At the cost of repetition, the words in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are altogether different. Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed earlier, the offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When we are considering whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste. 14. There is nothing on record to indicate that the accused/appellants were knowing the specific caste of the defacto complainant - respondent No.2 that too known as 'Hosakulavadi'. 15. As regard the bar under Section 18 of the Act is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of 'KIRAN VS. RAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAIN & ANR.', (2025) 9 SCR 283 has held as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off. 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 or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial. 16. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the relief as sought for. Accordingly, the following: O R D E R 1. Criminal appeal is allowed; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 2. The impugned order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. No.321/2026 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside. 3. The accused/appellants shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(za), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 2015 and Section 352, 351(2) and 190 of BNS 2023 subject to the following conditions; (a) Accused/Appellants shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one local surety for the likesum each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (b) Accused/appellants shall obtain regular bail from the jurisdictional court within ten days of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (c)Accused/Appellants shall appear before the jurisdictional police within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall continue to be present once in every fifteen days between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed or as and when requisitioned by the Investigating Officer. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23197 CRL.A No. 469 of 2026 (e) Accused/Appellants shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; (f) Accused/Appellants shall not involve in similar offences in future; (g) Accused/Appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against them is disposed off. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28