Karnataka HC Bails Man Accused Of Biting Dalit Man’s Knee, Noting Cross-FIR And Over A Month In Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside and the appellant enlarged on bail, having regard to the alleged overt act, the stage of investigation, and the applicable offences.

The court held

The appeal was allowed and the Special Judge’s order dated 15 September 2026 was set aside.

It also directed

The appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the Special Judge when directed, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, and non-commission of further offences.

The Court directed that breach of any bail condition would result in cancellation of bail.

01Facts

The appellant, Accused No. 4, was alleged to have joined other accused in an assault near Indira Canteen Cross Road, Shahapur, on 16 August 2026.

pp. 4–5

The prosecution alleged that the appellant struck and bit Devaraj, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, and that the group abused and threatened the victims; the principal complainant’s son was allegedly stabbed by Accused No. 1.

pp. 4–5

The appellant sought regular bail in Crime No. 226/2026, registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

pp. 2–3

After the Special Judge rejected his bail application on 15 September 2026, the appellant appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

pp. 2–3

He had been in judicial custody since 31 August 2026.

p. 8

02Issues

i.Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside and the appellant enlarged on bail, having regard to the alleged overt act, the stage of investigation, and the applicable offences.

pp. 3–6, 9–12

ii.Whether the prosecution’s concerns about witness tampering and interference with the investigation could be addressed by imposing bail conditions.

p. 4, 12

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which provides for an appeal against specified orders of a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court.

pp. 2–3

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 119(1), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 190 of the BNS, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

p. 3, 10

Applying the general principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court reasoned that pre-trial custody should not continue as punishment absent a special ground for denying bail.

pp. 7–8

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 9 provisions

Section 115 Section 118 Section 119 Section 126 Section 189 Section 190 Section 191 Section 351 Section 352

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the specific allegation that the appellant assaulted Devaraj and bit his right knee, and noted that the investigation remained at an early stage.

pp. 5–6

It also considered a cross-complaint arising from the same incident, the fact that the charged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the appellant’s custody of more than one month, and the absence of material showing antecedents or a need for further custodial interrogation.

pp. 6–8

The Court concluded that the prosecution had not shown a sufficient special ground to deny bail.

pp. 8–9

It held that concerns about witness tampering and interference with the investigation could be addressed through conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation and prohibiting interference.

pp. 8–9