- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100691 OF 2025 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT) BETWEEN: SHRI VINAYAK S/O. SUNIL MAHENDRAKAR AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUBBALLI VIDYANAGAR POLICE R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD PIN-580011. 2. XXX R/O. DOLLARS COLONY, JAMAKHANDI, DIST.BAGALKOT, PIN-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVARADDIYAVAR, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED TO R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 (A)(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 CRL.MISC.442/2025 (ARISING OUT OF HUBBALLI VIDYANAGAR P.S. CRIME NO.138/2025) DATED 23.10.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DHARWAD AND PLEASE RELEASED HIM ON BAIL, THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 64, 64(2)(M), 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(2)(V-A), 3(1)(W) OF SC/ST ACT 2015 IN CRIME NO.138/2025 OF VIDYANAGAR P.S.IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri T.R. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. 2. Respondent No.2 has been served but is unrepresented. 3. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the SC/ST (POA) Act’), with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, the appellant/accused above named prays that, this court be pleased to praying to set aside the order in Crl.Misc.442/2025 (arising out of Hubballi Vidyanagar P.S. Crime no.138/2025) dated 23.10.2025 passed by the II Addl.District and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 Sessions Judge at Dharwad and please released him on bail, the offences punishable u/s 64, 64(2)(m), 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) of BNS and section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST Act 2015 in Crime no.138/2025 of vidyanagar P.S., in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts in a nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are as under: A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2, aged about 34 years, with Vidya Nagar Police, Dharwad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 115(2), 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a), and 3(1)(w) of the the SC/ST (POA) Act. 5. The complaint averments reveal that the respondent No.2 admittedly belongs to a Scheduled Caste. She attended fitness training at a gym run by the petitioner, during which an intimacy allegedly developed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 6. During the course of a fitness training programme, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 went to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 Hubli and stayed at a hotel. It is alleged that, in that hotel, the petitioner administered a drink to respondent No.2 and then committed forcible sexual intercourse. 7. It is also alleged that the petitioner took photographs of intimate moments and on the basis of those photographs, blackmailed respondent No.2 to continue her physical relation with him. It is further alleged that when respondent No.2 demanded deletion of the said photographs, the petitioner assured her that he would marry her, and believing his assurance, she did not pursue the matter further. Subsequently, when the petitioner demanded that respondent No.2 visit Bagalkot and she refused, it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted her and abused her by uttering derogatory words, stating that a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste would only be used and not married. 8. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.138/2025 for the aforesaid offences and are investigating the matter. The petitioner’s - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 attempt to obtain an order granting anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Special Judge on the ground that Section 18 operates as a bar. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 10. Sri T. R. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the alleged use of words touching upon the caste of respondent No.2 was not within public view and, therefore, in light of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak Kumar Tala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others1, anticipatory bail can be granted. 11. He further contended that the victim is aged 34 years and the appellant is aged 38 years, and therefore the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse loses significance, particularly in view of the fact that no complaint was lodged immediately after the alleged incident, which is stated to have occurred in August 2025, whereas the complaint came 1 2025 SAR (Cri) 584 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 to be filed only on 27.09.2025. On these grounds, he sought allowance of the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 13. He further contended that the material available on record, particularly the averments in the complaint, prima facie establishes that a sexual assault was committed on a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is attracted in the present case. 14. He further emphasized that the case does not rest merely on the alleged use of words, but also involves improper touching of the body of a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste, thereby attracting the relevant provisions and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. On these grounds, he sought dismissal of the appeal. 15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. On - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 such perusal, it is pertinent to note that the complaint averments, though detailed, do not disclose when the alleged utterance of the words took place. 16. Admittedly, the complaint merely states that the alleged utterances occurred in August 2025, without specifying the exact date or the place where such utterances were made. In the absence of such particulars, prima facie, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not attracted to the case on hand. 17. Following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak kumar Tala (referred to supra), whether the alleged utterances were made in a private setting or within public view is a matter that requires investigation by the investigating agency. 18. Further, the intimacy between the parties is stated to have developed in January 2024, whereas the complaint came to be filed on 27.09.2025. In other words, as per the complaint averments, there was a physical - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 relationship between the parties for more than one year and eight months. 19. Whether the parties had a consensual physical relationship or otherwise cannot be determined by this Court at this stage, as doing so would amount to conducting a mini-trial and may prejudice the rights of either party during the course of the trial. 20. Suffice to say that the material on record at this stage would not disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order for anticipatory bail. However, taking note of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, it is clear that a reasonable period of custodial investigation is necessary to unearth the truth in the matter. If the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency for a limited period under custodial interrogation, and is thereafter released on bail, the rights of the petitioner and the requirements of the prosecution would be harmoniously balanced. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 21. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The appellant is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 16.01.2026 at 10:00 A.M. positively. iii. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the appellant into custody and complete the custodial interrogation on the same day, before 06:00 P.M., and thereafter enlarge the appellant on bail upon executing a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. iv. The appellant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency in all respects. He is further directed to appear before the court and the Investigating Officer as and when required. v. In that regard, he shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer every third Sunday of the month between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M., until the final report is filed. vi. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:90 CRL.A No. 100691 of 2025 vii. The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dharwad District without prior permission from the Court. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1