SHIVAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200287 OF 2026 (U/S 14 (A)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAPPA S/O HANUMANTHA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. MAHESH S/O SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. NAGAMMA W/O SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O BUNKALADODDI VILLAGE,
TQ : DEVADURGA, DIST: RAICHUR.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI MAHAMAD SHARIF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
JALAHALLI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI – 585 103.
2. SHIVAPPA S/O THIMMANNA KAVALI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. YANKAPPA S/O THIMMANNA KAVALI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
4. MANASAMMA W/O YANKAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, CC: HOUSEWIFE,
5. BASAVARAJ /O SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. LAKSHMI W/O DEVAPPA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R2 TO R6 ARE R/O BUNKALADODDI VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVADURGA, DIST: RAICHUR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAQBOOL AHMED, HCGP FOR R1;
V/O DATED 08.10.2026, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O DATED 13.10.2026, NOTICE TO R3 TO R6 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A (2) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL
APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF THE SCHEDULED
CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT 1989.
B) SET ASIDE THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER DATED
ON 22.07.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED HON’BLE COURT I
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, RAIHCUR DIST
RAICHUR IN CRL. MISC.NO.399/2026;
C) DIRECT THAT IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST OF
THE APPELLANTS IN CRIME NO.131/2026 REGISTERED BY
JALAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 329(3), 74, 109,
351(2), AND 352 READ WITH SECTIONS 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND
UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R), 3(1) (S), 3(1) (W), 3(2) (VA) AND 3(2) (V)
OF SC / ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015, THEY BE
RELEASED ON BAIL, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS THIS
HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned High Court Government Pleader (for short
‘HCGP’) for the respondent No.1 on the appeal. Perused
the relevant materials on record.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/ the
accused No.1, 2 and 4 under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’)
praying for an order to set aside the order dated
22.07.2026 of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crl.Misc.No.399/2026 and
thereby, direct the respondent No.1 Police to release the
appellants on bail in the event of their arrest in the case
in Crime No.131/2026 of the respondent No.1 Police for
the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1),
329(3), 74, 109, 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (PoA) Act.
3. The learned HCGP has orally objected to the
appeal submitting that there is prima facie case against
the appellants for the alleged offences. There is case
against the appellants for the offences under the
provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act and there is bar under
Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act to grant anticipatory bail.
Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. The learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition for
anticipatory bail filed by the appellants. The
investigation is already over and the charge sheet is filed
against the appellants. There is no any special ground
made out by the appellants to grant anticipatory bail in
their favour. Therefore, the learned HCGP has sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
4. The case alleged against the appellants is that
the complainant and her family members have landed
property in Sy.No.25 of Bunkaldoddi village situated
besides river Krishna. The lands of accused persons are
also situated near the land of complainant. The
appellants and the accused No.3 used to graze sheep
and the sheep used to pass through the land of
complainant for drinking water. When the matter stood
thus, on 21.06.2026 at about 12.30 p.m., the appellants
along with the accused No.3 while passing through the
land of the complainant by taking their sheep, went to
the land of the complainant and illegally trespassed into
the land of the complainant, picked up quarrel with her
husband and abused him in filthy language The
accused No.3 assaulted the husband of complainant
with hands and caused him bleeding injuries. When the
complainant came to rescue her husband, the appellant
No.4/accused No.4 by holding her tuft slapped on her
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
cheek and accused No.1 dragged the complainant by
holding her hand and also outraged her modesty. The
appellant No.2/ accused No.2 also assaulted the father-
in-law of complainant and caused him injuries and
thereby, the appellants committed the alleged offences.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the appellants are innocent of the
offences alleged against them and they have not
committed any offence. There is case registered against
the complainant and others on the complaint of family
member of the appellants regarding the same incident
and as a counter blast, the complainant has filed the
false complaint against the appellants and the accused
No.3.
6. However, when there are case and counter
case regarding the same incident, it is clear that the
incident stands admitted by the appellants. Moreover,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
the learned HCGP has submitted that the investigation
is already over and the charge sheet is filed against the
appellants and accused No.3. Hence, the contention of
the appellants that they are innocent of the offences
alleged against them and they have not committed any
offence does not merit consideration.
7. However, as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the wound certificate of the
husband of complainant and other injured persons
would show that the injuries allegedly suffered in the
incident are simple in nature. The learned Sessions
Judge while rejecting bail application of appellants has
observed that the injured is the husband of complainant
is already discharged from the hospital on 29.06.2026.
This would show that there is no threat or danger to the
life of the injured due to the injuries suffered in the
incident.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
8. Moreover, the counter case registered against
the complainant and others on the complaint of the
member of the family of the appellants is also for the
same offences in which the learned Sessions Judge has
granted anticipatory bail in favour of the accused No.1
to 5.
9. As submitted by the learned HCGP, there is
allegation against the appellants for the offences
punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act
and there is bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA)
Act for granting anticipatory bail. However, as pointed
out by the learned counsel for the appellants, if the
complaint averments are taken into consideration, there
is no prima facie material to show that the appellants
have intentionally abused or intimidated insulting the
complainant with intent to humiliate the injured, who
are undoubtedly belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
10. There is no prima facie material to show that
the appellants abused the injured persons, who are
belonging to Scheduled Caste by their caste name to
intentionally insult them. The allegation against the
appellants is that they abused the injured, complainant
and her father-in-law as ‘ ’ .
¨ÁåqÀgÀ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼É
11. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, if there is
no intention on the part of the appellants to abuse or
insult the victims/injured by calling them by their caste
name, even if the injured or the victims are belonging to
the SC/ST, no prima facie case could be made out
against them for any of the offences under SC/ST (PoA)
Act at this stage. Therefore, there is no reason to deny
anticipatory bail to the appellants even if there is bar
under Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
12. Even if it is accepted for the sake of
arguments that there is prima facie case against the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
appellants for the alleged offences, there is absolutely no
reason to deny bail to the appellants. The alleged
offence is not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. The maximum punishment for the
alleged offence is imprisonment for life, even though the
alleged offence is triable by the learned Magistrate.
There is no material forthcoming from the respondent
Police to show any antecedents of the appellants that
they committed any similar offence or any offence
earlier.
13. Moreover, the appellants are residents of
Bunkaladoddi village of Devadurga Taluk of Raichur
District within jurisdiction of the trial Court/ learned
Special Judge. It is well settled that bail is rule and jail
is an exception. The accused cannot be allowed to
remain in judicial custody during pretrial stage as
punishment for the alleged offence. Moreover, as per the
submission of the learned HCGP, the investigation is
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
already over and the charge sheet is filed against the
appellants and accused No.3 in the case. Therefore, the
custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required
by the respondent Police.
14. Any of the apprehensions of the learned
HCGP can be suitably met with by imposing proper and
necessary conditions on the appellants while granting
bail in their favour. There is absolutely no any special or
serious ground made out by the respondent Police to
deny bail to the appellants. The appellants have made
out sufficient grounds to grant bail in their favour.
Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error
in denying anticipatory bail to the appellants under the
impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside and the present appeal deserves to
be allowed.
15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Consequently, the order dated 22.07.2026 of the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.399/2026 is set
aside.
The respondent No.1 Police is directed to release
the appellants/ the accused No.1, 2 and 4 on bail in the
event of their arrest in the case in Crime No.131/2026
of the respondent No.1 Police for the offences
punishable under 115(2), 118(1), 329(3), 74, 109, 351(2)
and 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w),
3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on their
executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
each with two sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/ learned Special Judge,
subject to the following conditions that;
i) The appellants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11279
CRL.A No. 200287 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030089932026
ii) They shall appear before the learned
Special/Sessions Judge as and when
directed and shall assist the trial Court in
trial of the case.
iii) They shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses and hamper further
investigation of the case in any manner,
and
iv) They shall not commit any similar
offences or any offence during pendency
of the case.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
RSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4