01Facts
The appellant challenged the Special Court’s order rejecting his application for anticipatory bail in Garag Police Station Crime No. 126/2026.
p. 2The complaint alleged that, during a protest concerning the suicide of a Scheduled Caste girl, the appellant abused the Home Minister by referring to his caste and abused members of the Muslim community.
pp. 2–4, 6The offences alleged were under Sections 299, 353(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
pp. 2–3The investigation was ongoing, and the Special Court had rejected anticipatory bail on 30 June 2026.
pp. 2, 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, notwithstanding the bar in Section 18A, on the basis that no prima facie case was made out.
pp. 5–7ii.2. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed a prima facie case sufficient to deny anticipatory bail while the investigation remained pending.
pp. 6–703Law Applied
Section 18A of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in cases under the Act, but, following Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, that bar does not apply where the complaint fails to disclose a prima facie case under the Act.
p. 6The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act and the cited BNS provisions.
pp. 2–3Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 299Section 353Section 352Section 351
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
04Reasoning
The Court considered the complaint’s allegations that the appellant abused the Home Minister and the Muslim community during the protest.
pp. 6–7It concluded that those allegations disclosed a prima facie case and therefore did not fall within the exception to the Section 18A bar identified in Prathvi Raj Chauhan.
pp. 6–7Given that conclusion and the fact that the investigation was still pending, the Court held that anticipatory bail was not warranted.
pp. 5–705Holding
The Court answered the entitlement question in the negative, finding a prima facie case against the appellant for the purposes of the anticipatory-bail application.
p. 7It dismissed the appeal and left in place the Special Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail.
p. 7Original Court PDF
SRI SHIVANAND S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA SHATTIGERIvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
