ALTAF KHAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1671 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
1. ALTAF KHAN
S/O LATE T. IBRAHIM KHAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 60/69
2ND CROSS SINGAYYANAPALYA,
MAHADEVEPAURA, BENGALURU CITY - 560048.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560001
2. S. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A NO.53-A, CHILEPALLI VILLAGE,
GOUNIPALLI POST,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR,
BENGALURU-563161.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1,
V/O DTD: 17.10.2026 SRI. PRUTHVEEN KATTIMANI, AMICUS
CURIAE FOR R2.)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS
HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-
71) DTD 28.09.2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.8465/2026 AND
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH
CRIME NO. 254/2026 OF MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 271 OF BNS R/W 8 OF THE PROHIBITION OF
EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR
REHABILITATION ACT, 2013 AND SECTION 3(1)(j) OF THE
SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015,
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE COURT OF LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN SPL. CASE NO.
1936/2026.
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 28.09.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.8465/2026
by the C/c LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the trial Court.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the
basis of the complaint filed by Sri Venkataramanappa ,
Mahadevapura Police registered case in Crime
No.254/2026 against the accused for the offence under
Section 8 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual
Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Section
271 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the
accused for the offence under Section 8 of the Prohibition
of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013, Section 271 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 3(1)(j) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
5. The application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023
seeking bail, was filed before the C/c LXX Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. Same came to be
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection of application,
the appellant has preferred this appeal
6. Sri Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, learned counsel for the
appellant re-iterates the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal, which are as under:
"( 1) The impugned order is contrary to the material
placed on record, inasmuch as the Appellant's liberty
is sought to be curtailed principally on account of the
subsequent inclusion of Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST
Act, although the original offences under Section 271
BNS and Section 8 of the Manual Scavengers Act
were treated by the jurisdictional Magistrate as
bailable and bail had earlier been granted.
(2) The prosecution material does not disclose any
independent and specific material demonstrating that
the Appellant had prior knowledge of the victim's
caste at the relevant point of time. The charge sheet
relies upon subsequent verification of the caste
status of the victim and the Appellant, but the
material placed on record, as presently available,
does not identify a specific contemporaneous
circumstance from which such knowledge can safely
be inferred at the stage of bail.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
(3) Section 3(1)(j) of the SC/ST Act specifically
concerns making a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe do manual scavenging, or employing
or permitting the employment of such member for
that purpose. The prosecution must therefore
establish the statutory ingredients, including the
nexus between the alleged employment and the
statutory concept of manual scavenging. The
Appellant submits that the precise nature and
statutory character of the alleged chamber-cleaning
work is a matter requiring evidence at trial.
(4) The definition of "manual scavenger" under
Section 2(1)(g) of the 2013 Act concerns manual
cleaning, carrying, disposing of or otherwise handling
human excreta in an insanitary latrine or an open
drain or pit into which human excreta from insanitary
latrines is disposed, or other notified spaces. The
present charge-sheet material describes the place as
a chamber/sewer and refers to waste water/sewage.
The prosecution has not placed any conclusive
technical or statutory classification of the particular
chamber on record at the stage of bail.
(5) The alleged incident is stated to have occurred
on 17/03/2026, whereas the FIR was registered only
on 21/04/2026. The FIR records no substantive
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
explanation for the delay. The delay is a relevant
circumstance for assessing the reliability and weight
of the prosecution version at the stage of bail,
particularly when the principal evidence is
documentary/electronic and the investigation has
already culminated in a charge sheet.
(6) The charge sheet is founded upon a limited set
of witnesses. The victim's statement is a later
statement recorded on 30/04/2026. The prosecution
version, including the precise nature of the work
allegedly undertaken, the circumstances in which it
was allegedly ordered, and the role attributed to the
Appellant, are matters that can be tested by cross-
examination during trial and should not be
conclusively determined at the stage of bail.
(7) There is no allegation that the Appellant
personally entered into the sewer or chamber and
performed the cleaning. The allegation against the
Appellant is of having asked / engaged the victim to
perform the work. The question whether the alleged
activity squarely falls within the statutory offence
and whether the ingredients of Section 3(1)(j) are
satisfied are triable issues.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
(8) The prosecution has already completed
investigation and filed the charge sheet. The charge
sheet itself records that a police notice was issued to
the Appellant. Consequently, there is no necessity for
custodial interrogation of the Appellant for the
purpose of investigation.
(9) The prosecution relies upon video/electronic
material, panchnama material, official records and
caste certificates. These materials are already in
custody of the investigating agency/Court. Hence,
the apprehension of the Appellant tampering with the
investigation can be adequately addressed by
imposing stringent conditions.
(10) The Appellant had earlier been granted bail by
the learned XXX ACMM on 24/04/2026 in respect of
Section 271 of the BNS and Section 8 of the Manual
Scavengers Act, on the specific finding that the said
offences were bailable. The subsequent addition of
Section 3(1)(j), by itself, does not justify
disregarding the earlier judicial consideration of the
Appellant's liberty, particularly when the prosecution
case and investigation material are substantially
crystallised in the charge sheet.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
(11) The inclusion of Section 3(1)(j) was made
subsequently on a police requisition. The order sheet
shows that the police sought permission to include
the section and that the records were then
transferred to the Special Court. The Appellant
submits that the legality and factual basis for the
subsequent addition are matters that require careful
judicial scrutiny and cannot, by themselves, justify
continued incarceration where the Appellant is
otherwise available to face trial.
(12) Section 10 of the Prohibition of Employment as
Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
prescribes the manner in which cognizance of
offences under that Act may be taken. The
prosecution in the present case has proceeded
through a police FIR and charge sheet. The Appellant
relies upon the law laid down by the Karnataka High
Court in Sri C. Somashekar v. State of Karnataka,
Crl. P. No. 95/2018, decided on 13/07/2022, and Sri
S.A. Ram Prakash v. State of Karnataka, W. P. No.
4918/2025, decided on 05/03/2025, where the Court
considered the statutory bar relating to cognizance
under Section 10 and the ingredients of Section
3(1)(j). This substantial legal issue also weighs in
favour of grant of bail.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
(13) The Karnataka High Court has also considered
the application of Section 3(1)(j) in cases involving
alleged manual scavenging and has emphasised the
necessity of the statutory ingredients. The decision in
Sri C. Somashekar is particularly relevant because
the Court considered the absence of material
showing knowledge of the victim's SC/ST status as
an essential aspect of Section 3(1)(j).
(14) The Appellant is entitled to the ordinary
principles governing bail, including the presumption
of innocence, the need to distinguish the individual
role of the accused, the completion of investigation,
and the requirement that pre-trial detention should
not become punitive. Section 483 of the BNSS
confers jurisdiction upon this Hon'ble Court to direct
release on bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
(15) The offence under Section 271 of the BNS
carries a comparatively limited punishment, and the
original offences were treated as bailable by the
learned Magistrate. The prosecution has not alleged
any act of violence, threat, intimidation or physical
harm by the Appellant against the victim after the
alleged incident.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
(16) The Appellant is aged about 58 years. He has a
fixed residential address within Bengaluru and is
therefore available to the jurisdiction of the learned
Trial Court. There is no material in the charge sheet
showing that he is a flight risk."
On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing the
application.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader
Sri Nageshwarappa K, would submit that the notice is duly
service to respondent No.2. Despite service of notice to
respondent No.2, he remained absent and unrepresented.
Sri Pruthveen Kattimani is appointed as the learned
Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned High Court
Government Pleader and examined the materials placed
before this Court. At the time of filing FIR, the penal
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were not
inserted. Only during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has found that the accused has
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
committed the alleged offence under the penal provisions
of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and submitted the
charge sheet against the accused accordingly.
9. The alleged commission of offence under Section 8 of
the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 is bailable in nature. Section
271 of BNS, 2023 is also available. Now, the investigation
is already completed. Accused is not required for custodial
interrogation. No purpose will be served in sending the
accused to judicial custody. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed ;
(ii) The order dated 28.09.2026 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.8465/2026 by the C/c LXX Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside; Consequently,
application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is
allowed ;
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59154
CRL.A No. 1671 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010687022026
(iii) The appellant 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 or
the trial Court, in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.254/2026, now in Special C.C.No.1936/2026;
(iv) The appellant shall not tamper or threaten the
prosecution witness in any manner;
(v) The appellant shall appear before the Court on
all the dates of hearing, without fail;
(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in similar
offence.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to
the trial Court and shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to
the learned Amicus Curiae.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6