ANESH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200314 OF 2026 (U/S14 (A) )
BETWEEN:
ANESH S/O BHEEMAPPA DUKHAN,
AGE : 27 YEARS, OCC : LABORER,
R/O: TORANTIPPA VILLAGE,
TQ : GURUMITKAL,
DIST : YADGIRI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SAIDAPUR POLICE STATION,
YADGIR DISTRICT,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH 585 102.
2. GUNDAMMA
W/O ANJAPPA SADHU,
AGE : 20 YEARS,
OCC : HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: WADAVATTA VILLAGE,
TQ : GURUMITKAL,
DIST : YADGIR – 585 214.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17.09.2026 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.458/2026
AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED
NO.1 (AS PER FIR) ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.116/2026 OF
SAIDAPUR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 64(1), 126, 115(2)
OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant/ accused No.1
and the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent No.1/
State are present.
2. The notice to respondent No.2 is returned
duly served. The respondent No.2 is called out, absent.
Hence, service of notice to the respondent No.2 is held
sufficient.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/
accused No.1 and the learned Addl. SPP for the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
respondent No.1/ State on the appeal. Perused the
relevant materials on record.
4. This appeal is filed by the appellant/ accused
No.1 under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [for short
‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’] praying for an order to set aside the
order dated 17.09.2026 of the learned the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir [for short ‘the
learned Sessions Judge’], in Crl.Misc. No.458/2026 by
allowing the appeal and thereby to enlarge the appellant
on bail in the case in Crime No.116/2026 of respondent
police for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1),
126 and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (for short
‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & (ii) and 3(2)(v) of SC/SC
(PoA) Act, pending before the learned Sessions Judge.
5. The learned Addl. SPP has orally objected to
the appeal submitting that there is prima facie case
against the appellant for the alleged offences and hence,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellant under the impugned order.
There is no ground made out by the appellant to set
aside the order and to grant bail to him. Hence, the
learned Addl. SPP has sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
6. The case alleged against the appellant and
another accused is that on 13.08.2026 at about 09.45
a.m., the victim/ respondent No.2 went to the field for
work and at that time the accused No.1, who was sitting
under a mango tree, came near the complainant and
forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. When
Respondent No.2 raised cry for help the accused No.2
came and caught hold her and assaulted on her back.
Hence, the appellant and accused No.2 have committed
the alleged offences.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the appellant is innocent of the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
offences alleged against him and he has not committed
any offence. But, as submitted by the learned Addl.
SPP, the investigation is not yet completed. The
complaint averments and the prosecution papers on
record make out prima facie case against the appellant
for the alleged offence, which is heinous offence
punishable with imprisonment for not less than 10
years and it may extend to imprisonment for life.
Moreover, till the investigation is not completed, the
contention of the appellant that he is innocent of the
offences alleged against him does not merit
consideration.
8. However, as submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant, the case of the victim is that the
appellant is not known to her and the incident took
place on 13.08.2026 and she informed the fact to her
husband on 18.08.2026 at about 11.00 a.m., and on
18.08.2026 she along with her husband went to
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
Toranatippa Village and she identified the appellant and
thereafter, the case was registered against the appellant
and another. Based on this, the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that these
contentions create doubt regarding the alleged incident
against the appellant.
9. However, the investigation is not yet
completed and therefore, any of the contentions of the
appellant that he is innocent of the offence alleged
against him does not merit consideration at this stage.
Further, as it is case of the victim that the appellant is
not known to her. This would make it clear that the
appellant would not be knowing that the victim belongs
to Scheduled Caste and therefore, at this stage, there is
no reason to disbelieve the contention of the appellant
regarding SC/ST (PoA) Act. Moreover, the present
appeal is challenging the order of the learned Sessions
Judge regarding regular bail.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
10. However, even if it is accepted for the sake of
argument that there is case against the appellant for the
alleged offences, the said offence is not punishable with
death or life imprisonment and the same exclusively
triable by the learned Sessions Judge and the maximum
punishment is not less than 7 years which may extend
to 10 years. There is absolutely no any special ground
made out by the respondent Police to deny bail to the
appellant. Mere fact that the investigation is not yet
completed cannot be a reason to deny bail to the
appellant.
11. There is no material forthcoming from the
respondent Police to show any antecedents of the
appellant that he committed similar offence or any
offence earlier. Moreover, the appellant is resident of
Toranatippa Village, Gurumitkal Talu, Yadgiri District,
within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned
Sessions Judge.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
12. It is well settled that the bail is rule and jail is
an exception. The accused cannot be allowed to remain
in judicial custody during investigation and pre-trial
stage of the case as punishment for the alleged offences,
unless there is any special ground made out by the
prosecution. There is absolutely no any serious ground
made out by the prosecution to deny bail to the
appellant.
13. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant, the materials on record would
show that the Investigating Officer has not furnished
ground for arresting of the appellant/accused in the
remand application. There is absolutely no material
forthcoming from the respondent Police to show that
while arresting the appellant the ground of arrest was
furnished to him. On this ground also, the appellant is
entitled to bail as sought for in the appeal.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
14. As discussed herein above, as there is no
prima facie material forthcoming against the appellant
at this stage for any of the offences under SC/ST (PoA)
Act, there is absolutely no reason to deny bail to the
appellant. Any of the apprehension of the learned Addl.
SPP can be suitably met with by imposing proper and
necessary conditions on the appellant while grants bail
to him. Hence, the appellant is entitled to bail. The
learned Sessions Judge has committed error in denying
bail to the appellant under the impugned order and
therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside
Consequently, this appeal deserves to be allowed.
15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
allowed
i) The appeal is hereby .
ii) The impugned order of the learned
Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc. No.458/2026
dated 17.09.2026 is hereby set aside.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
iii) Consequently, the appellant/
accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail in
the case in Crime No.116/2026 of the
respondent Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 64(1), 126 and
115(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii)
and 3(2)(v) of SC/SC (PoA) Act, on his
executing personal bond for
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Special Judge/Trial Court, subject to the
following conditions that:
a)
The appellant shall appear before
the Investigating Officer as and
when required till the final report
is filed and he shall assist the
Investigating Officer in further
investigation of the case.
b)
He shall appear before the learned
Special Judge/ trial Court as and
when directed and he shall assist
the trial Court in trial of the case.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11236
CRL.A No. 200314 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030106142026
c) He shall not tamper with
prosecution witnesses and hamper
further investigation of the case in
any manner, and
d) They shall not commit similar
offences or any offence during the
pendency of case.
If the appellant violates any of the conditions of
bail, the bail granted in his favour shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
SBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5