HANUMANTH @ HANUMANTHAPPA LINGADALLI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200292 OF 2026 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
Sri. HANUMANTH
@ HANUMANTHAPPA LINGADALLI
S/O SHIVAPPA LINGADALLI,
AGE : 38 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O: IRAKALGADA VILLAGE,
TQ : DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTIR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
2. SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O HOLIYAPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE : 49 YEARS,
OCC : PDO GRAM PANCHAYATH SARJAPUR,
R/O: BOGAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ : LINGASUGUR,
DIST : RAICHUR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A (2) OF
SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2026 TO GRANT HIM
ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT RESPONDENT POLICE TO
RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN THE IN CRIME NO.255/2026 OF
LINGASUGUR P.S. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION U/S 126(2), 132, 308(2), 351(2),
352, 62 OF BNS-2023 AND SECTION 3(2)(VA), 3(1)(R)(S) OF
RD
SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT-2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS COURT SITTING SINDHANUR,
RAICHUR DIST. AND GRANT BAIL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 on the appeal.
Perused the relevant materials on record.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/ accused
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’), praying for an order to set
aside the order dated 22.08.2026 of the learned III
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, Sitting
at Sindhanur in Crl.Misc.No.5398/2026 and thereby
grant anticipatory bail in his favour directing the
respondent No.1 Police to release him on bail in the
event of his arrest in the case in Crime No.255/2026 of
the respondent No.1 Police for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 132, 308(2), 351(2), 352, 62 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and
Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) & (s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
3. The learned HCGP for the respondent No.1
Police has orally objected to the appeal submitting that
there is prima facie case against the appellant for the
offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA)
Act. There is bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA)
Act to grant anticipatory bail and therefore, the learned
Special Judge has rightly dismissed the petition for
grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant. The
investigation is at the initial stage and hence, if the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
appellant is released on bail, there is chance of him
tampering with prosecution witnesses and hampering
further investigation of the case. The appellant has
failed to make out any ground to set aside the impugned
order and grant anticipatory bail in his favour.
Therefore, the learned HCGP has sought for dismissal of
the petition.
4. In spite of appearing as party in person, the
respondent has not chosen to appear subsequently and
contest the petition.
5. The case alleged against the appellant is that
the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant is working
as PDO in Sarjapur Gram Panchayath and in the month
of March, the appellant filed 27 complaints before the
Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Lingasuguru,
Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath, Raichur and
the Ombudsman of MGNREGA. The appellant after
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
obtaining the mobile number of officers called several
PDOs and demanded amount of Rs.50,000/- from them
and he threatened that if the amount was paid he would
protect them. When the matter stood thus, on
26.05.2026 at about 02.00 p.m., when the complainant
and other PDOs were in the premises of the office of
Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Lingasuguru, the
appellant asked the names and caste of all the PDOs
and thereafter demanded Rs.50,000/- and threatened
that he is having all documents with him. When all the
officers tried to enter the office, they were stopped from
entering into the office and when the same was
questioned by respondent No.2, the appellant abused
him in his caste name and demanded money. Thereafter
complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2 against
the appellant. Hence, the appellant has committed the
alleged offences.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
6. The contention of the appellant is that he is
innocent of the offences alleged and that he has not
committed any of such offences. Per contra, as
submitted by learned HCGP, that the investigation is at
the initial stage and it is yet to be completed. There is
prima facie material against the appellant in the case
and at this stage, the contention of the appellant that he
is innocent of the offences alleged and he has not
committed any such offences does not merit
consideration.
7. However, as submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant, the very fact mentioned in the complaint
that the appellant asked the respondent No.2 about the
caste name would clearly show that the complainant is
not knowing the caste of the appellant as on the date of
alleged incident. Therefore, the respondent No.2 being
the PDO and there is complaint given by the appellant
against the respondent No.2 and other PDOs to the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
concerned authorities, the question of the appellant
abusing the respondent No.2 by calling his caste name
does not arise from the materials on record.
8. Moreover, as submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant, there is a delay of about two months in
filing the complaint after the alleged incident. The
appellant has produced copies of the documents which
would show that on 24.07.2026 itself, the appellant
gave complaint against the respondent No.2 and other
PDOs of other panchayath regarding the illegal acts of
certain scheme. Therefore, at this stage, there is no
reason to disbelieve the contention of the appellant.
9. However, even if it is accepted for the sake of
argument, that there is prima facie case against the
appellant for the alleged offences, the said offence
alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. The maximum punishment for the alleged
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
offence is imprisonment for three years, even though the
alleged offence is exclusively triable by the learned
Special Judge.
10. The material on record would show that there
is no serious or special ground made out by the
respondent No.1 Police to show any antecedents of the
appellant that he has committed any similar offences or
any offence earlier. As pointed out by learned counsel
for the appellant, this Court has grant anticipatory bail
in favour of the accused persons in similar offences
referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and
also several decisions of the coordinate Bench of this
Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly
relied on the order dated 12.08.2026 of this Court in
Crl.Appeal No.200235 of 2026, wherein this Court has
observed as under:
“ 16. In support of arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellants, he has relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
Vs. Union of India and Ors., and in the case of Hitesh
Verna Vs. The State of Uttarakhand,. Further, the
learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the
attention of this Court to the following cases of the
coordinate bench of this Court, wherein in the case for
the offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, the anticipatory bail
is granted:
i. N.Tejasvi Reddy Alias Tejureddy
S/o Narasimha Reddy Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Ors dated 10.10.2023 in
Crl.A.No.1593/2023.
ii. Vinod Gowda S/o Govindaraju and
Ors Vs. State by Bagalagunte Police
Station and Ors dated 21.01.2025 in Crl.A
No.2164/2024.
iii. Karthik @Nithesh J.A. S/o Anjana
Murthy N Vs. The State of Karnataka
and Ors dated 16.03.2023 in Crl.A
No.288/2023.
iv. H.N. Babu Reddy S/o Haralooru
Narayana Reddy Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Ors dated 02.09.2022 in
WP No.12972/2022.
v. Krishnamurthy S/o Late Chikkanna
Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors
dated 22.10.2024 in Crl.A No.1691/2024.
vi. Kanakareddy S/o Ganganagouda
Sajjihola and Ors Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Ors dated 13.01.2026 in
Crl.A No.200376/2025.
vii. Syed Muran Huseni S/o Syed Huseni
Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors
Crl.P
dated 04.12.2025 in
No.201936/2025.
viii. Suvarna K.H. W/o Halappa K., and
Ors Vs. The State by Rural Police Station
and Ors dated 10.10.2025 in Crl.A
No.1702/2025.
ix. Manjunath S/o Timanna Hiremani Vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors dated
24.04.2025 in Crl.A No.100201/2025.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
17. In view of the above referred cases, it would be
clear that even if the FIR contains mention of the offence
punishable under SC/ST (PoA) Act, unless there is prima
facie case made out against the appellants for such
offence, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act
cannot be a ground to deny benefit of anticipatory bail in
favour of the accused persons in the case. Moreover, in
the above referred case of Pruthvi Raj, the factual
procedural background of the case is summarized that:
"The the writ petitions challenged
constitutional validity of Section 18-A,
inserted by the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2018. Section 18-A (i)
removes the requirement of a preliminary
enquiry or prior approval before registration
of an FIR or arrest, and Section 18-A (ii)
reiterates that anticipatory bail under
Section 438 CrPC is unavailable for
offences under the 1989 Act.
The amendment was enacted to nullify
directions 79.3 to 79.5 issued by a two-
judge Bench in Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6
SCC 454, which had introduced safeguards
such as preliminary enquiry and prior
approval for arrest. However, a three-judge
Bench subsequently allowed review
petitions in Union of India v. State of
Maharashtra (2020) 4 SCC 761 and
recalled those directions. In light of the
review judgment, the present Bench (Arun
Mishra and Vineet Saran, JJ.; S. Ravindra
Bhat, J. concurring) treated the
constitutional challenge as largely
academic but proceeded to clarify the legal
position."
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
18. Hence, in spite of the fact that the offence is
alleged against the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, the
appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail as sought
for. ”
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also the decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court and also of this Court as stated
supra , it is clear that in spite of the fact that the offence
is alleged against the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act, the
appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail as sought for. It
is pertinent to mention herein that that even if there is
bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, there is no
reason to believe the contentions of the learned HCGP at
this stage that there is prima facie case against the
appellant for the alleged offences.
12. Any of the apprehensions of the learned
HCGP can be suitably met with by imposing proper and
necessary conditions on the appellant, making him to
assist the IO for further investigation of the case.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
Hence, the appellant has made out sufficient ground for
grant of bail in his favour. Consequently, the appeal
deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. Consequently, the order dated 22.08.2026 of
the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Raichur,
Sitting at Sindhanur in Crl.Misc.5398/2026
is set aside.
iii. The respondent No.1 Police is directed to
release the appellant/ accused on bail, in the
event of his arrest in the case in Crime
No.255/2026 of the respondent Police for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
132, 308(2), 351(2), 351(2), 352, 62 of BNS
and Sections 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(r) & (s) of SC/ST
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
(PoA) Act, subject to the following conditions
that:
1. The appellant/ accused shall appear
before the Investigating Officer within
15 days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order and he shall execute
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
2. He shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required till final report is filed and he
shall assist the Investigating Officer in
further investigation of the case.
3. He shall appear before the trial Court
as and when directed and assist the
trial Court in trial of the case.
4. He shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses and shall not hamper the
investigation of the case in any
manner, and
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10829
CRL.A No. 200292 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030098072026
5. He shall not commit any similar
offences or any offence during
pendency of the case.
However, this order of anticipatory bail shall not
come in the way of the Investigating Officer taking
custody of the appellant with prior permission of the
learned Special Judge/ trial Court, if the custodial
interrogation of appellant is required in the investigation
of the case.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
MBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8