SRI UPPARA HONNURAPPA S/O UPPARA DODDA GOVINDAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100478 OF 2026
(U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. UPPARA HONNURAPPA
S/O UPPARA DODDA GOVINDAPPA
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POOJARAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA 583135.
2. SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O UPPARA HONNURAPPA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O. POOJARAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA 583135.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD 580001.
2. SRI OBALESHA S/O MALLAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. POOJARAHALLI VILLAGE-583135
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.
3. SMT. NAGARATNA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. PUJARAHALLI VILLAGE-583135
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.10.15
14:24:28 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
4. SMT. KAMALAMMA
AGE 75 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE
R/O. PUJARAHALLI VILLAGE-583135,
TQ. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST ACT,
1989 SEEKING TO GRANT 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.291/2025 OF HOSAHALLI P.S REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION U/S. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), (2)(v-
a), 3(1)(w) OF SC AND ST ACT 1989 AND SECTION 109, 115(2),
118(1), 133, 309(4), 318, 318(4), 74 OF BNSS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYANAGARA
DISTRICT HOSAPETE THE IN SPL.C.NO.353/2026 & GRANT BAIL BY
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2026 IN CRL.MISC
NO.404/2026, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is preferred by the
appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3, assailing the order dated
13.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Vijayanagara District, Hosapete, in Crl.
Misc. No.404/2026, whereby their application seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with the offences punishable
under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the
SC and ST Act’), and Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 133,
309(4), 318, 318(4) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’), came to be rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as alleged in the
complaint are that, the complainant, Obalesha lodged a
complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that, on
19.12.2025 at about 4:00 p.m., in front of the house of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
accused No. 1, accused Nos. 1 to 3 wrongfully restrained
the complainant and his family members. It is further
alleged that, accused No. 1 kicked the wife of the
complainant with slippers, while accused No. 2 kicked her
on the right ear, assaulted her on the chest and also
assaulted her with slippers. The accused are further
alleged to have snatched a gold chain with a pendant from
the neck of the complainant’s wife, attempted to kill her by
pressing her neck, torn her saree, assaulted her and
dragged her. It is also alleged that, the accused abused
the complainant and his wife by referring to their caste
and threatened them with dire consequences, including
threats to break their hands and legs. On the basis of the
said allegations, the complaint came to be registered.
3. The victims, who are arrayed as respondent
Nos.2 to 4 in the present appeal, have been served with
notice. Despite service of notice, they have remained
unrepresented.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader
(HCGP), appearing for respondent No. 1 has filed
objections opposing the appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contends
that, upon a reading of the complaint, it is evident that the
dispute primarily arises out of a civil dispute concerning
the ownership and possession of the land in question. It is
submitted that, accused No. 1 purchased the lands bearing
Survey Nos.513/A and 518/A, situated at Poojarahalli
Village, under registered sale deeds of the year 1993 and
1997 respectively. According to the appellants, after a
lapse of approximately 27 years, the complainant and his
family members began disputing the said transactions by
alleging that, the registered sale deeds had been
fraudulently obtained behind their backs, which resulted in
a quarrel between the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants further
submits that, the allegations of assault, caste-based abuse
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
and criminal intimidation are all false and have been made
with an ulterior motive to give a criminal colour to what is
essentially a property dispute. It is also contended that,
the accused never abused the complainant or his family
members by referring to their caste and the allegations of
assault are not true.
7. It is further submitted that, the investigation
has been completed and the charge sheet has already
been filed. During the course of the investigation, accused
No. 2, who is the son of accused No. 1, was arrested and
subsequently released on bail by the jurisdictional
Sessions Court.
8. The learned counsel further submits that,
accused Nos. 1 and 3 had earlier approached this Court
seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Appeal No. 100033 of
2026, which came to be dismissed by order dated
18.03.2026, having regard to the statutory bar contained
in Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
9. However, placing reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v.
Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC
727 , the learned counsel contends that the bar under
Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act does not apply
where the allegations, on their face, do not disclose a
prima facie offence under the said Act. It is therefore
argued that, having regard to the nature of the allegations
and the surrounding circumstances, the appellants are
entitled to the relief sought.
10. The learned counsel also draws the attention of
this Court to the fact that, the alleged incident took place
on 19.12.2025, whereas the complaint came to be lodged
on 21.12.2025. It is contended that, the delay in lodging
the complaint, coupled with the background of the
property dispute, is a relevant circumstance to be
considered while examining the appellants’ entitlement to
anticipatory bail.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
11. The learned counsel further relies upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorige
Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ,
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 , and submits that the
complaint does not contain the requisite allegations to
establish the commission of an offence under the SC/ST
Act.
12. Per contra, the learned HCGP opposes the
appeal, contending that the allegations in the complaint
disclose the commission of offences punishable under the
SC/ST Act. It is submitted that Sections 18 and 18A of the
said Act impose a statutory bar against the grant of
anticipatory bail and, therefore, the appellants are not
entitled to the relief sought.
13. The allegations in the complaint, the objections
filed by the learned HCGP and the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the appellants have been carefully
considered.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
14. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind
that Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act exclude the
applicability of the provisions relating to anticipatory bail in
cases involving offences under the said Act. However, as
clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj
Chauhan Case (supra), where the allegations in the
complaint do not prima facie disclose the commission of an
offence under the SC/ST Act, the statutory bar would not
operate.
15. In the present case, the appellants contend
that, the dispute between the parties essentially relates to
the lands bearing Survey Nos. 513/A and 518/A situated
at Poojarahalli Village, which are stated to have been
purchased by accused No. 1 under registered sale deeds
dated 09.03.1997. It is their case that, the criminal
proceedings arose out of the subsequent dispute
concerning the said transactions.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
16. Further, the fact that a dispute relating to
immovable property exists between the parties does not,
by itself, exclude criminal liability, if the ingredients of a
criminal offence are otherwise made out. Nevertheless, the
background of the dispute is a relevant circumstance to be
considered along with the specific allegations contained in
the complaint.
17. The complaint is stated to have been lodged on
21.12.2025 in respect of an incident alleged to have
occurred on 19.12.2025. The delay of two days, by itself,
cannot be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution
case; however, it may be considered along with the other
circumstances of the case.
18. It is also submitted that, the investigation has
been completed and the charge sheet has been filed.
Though the completion of the investigation does not by
itself entitle an accused to grant of anticipatory bail, the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
said circumstance may be considered along with the other
relevant factors.
19. The learned counsel for the appellants has
further submitted that, accused No. 1 is aged about 75
years and accused No. 3 is stated to be suffering from
substantial visual impairment. A disability certificate in
respect of accused No. 3 is stated to have been produced
along with the memo. These circumstances have also been
taken into consideration, without treating age or disability
as an independent ground sufficient to override the
statutory requirements governing the grant of anticipatory
bail.
20. The appellants have also relied upon Gorige
Pentaiah Case (supra). The applicability of the said
decision must be assessed in the light of the precise
allegations in the present complaint and the statutory
ingredients of the offences alleged. The absence of a
particular expression or an express statement regarding
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
the caste of the accused cannot, in every case be treated
as conclusive; the complaint must be examined as a whole
to determine whether the essential ingredients of the
alleged offence are prima facie disclosed.
21. Upon consideration of the materials placed
before this Court, the nature of the dispute, the allegations
in the complaint, the stage of the proceedings and the
submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that
the appellants have made out grounds for the relief
sought, provided that the allegations taken at face value,
do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence
attracting the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST
Act.
22. Accordingly, the point for consideration is
answered in the affirmative.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed .
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 are directed to
appear before the jurisdictional Trial Court within fifteen
days from the date of this order and move for the
appropriate relief in accordance with law.
Subject to the Trial Court being satisfied that the
statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act
is not attracted, the appellants shall be released on bail in
the event of their arrest, upon each of them executing a
personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only), with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the
following conditions:
a. The appellants shall cooperate with the trial
proceedings and appear before the Trial Court as
and when directed.
b. The appellants shall not directly or indirectly
threaten, induce or intimidate the complainant, the
victims or any prosecution witness.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16866
CRL.A No. 100478 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020170702026
c. The appellants shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
d. The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal
activity during the subsistence of the bail order.
e. The appellants shall comply with all further
conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Trial Court
in accordance with law.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are
confined to the consideration of the present appeal and
shall not influence the merits of the case during trial.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12