Facts
On 4 December 2025, a dispute allegedly arose near Patel Nagar Road between the complainant and his mother, and the appellant, who operated a lassi shop. The complaint alleged that the appellant abused them by referring to their caste and assaulted them.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5–6The case was initially registered against two accused; following investigation, proceedings against the second accused were dropped and the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant alone.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7The Sessions Court rejected the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail, and he appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Source reference: pp. 2, 4, paras. 1, 8Issues
Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, thereby attracting the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 13, 15–17Whether the appellant had made out sufficient grounds for setting aside the Sessions Court’s order and obtaining anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 13Law Applied
Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bar anticipatory bail where the complaint and material disclose a prima facie offence under that Act; the bar does not operate where a prima facie case is not made out.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 9–10; p. 7, para. 16The Court relied on Prathviraj Chouhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, for this principle.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10The alleged offences included Section 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Source reference: pp. 2, 4, paras. 1, 9Reasoning
The Court considered the complaint and investigation material only to determine whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act attracted the statutory bar.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 15It concluded that the necessary ingredients of the Act’s offences were not prima facie established on the material before it; accordingly, Sections 18 and 18A did not preclude anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 17The Court also noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, making custodial interrogation unnecessary at that stage.
Source reference: pp. 7–8, para. 18Considering these circumstances and Prathviraj Chouhan, it found grounds to grant bail subject to conditions.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 19Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, allowed the appeal, and set aside the Sessions Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail.
It directed that, in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on anticipatory bail on conditions including execution of a ₹1,00,000 personal bond with two sureties, surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, cooperation with the investigation, and compliance with the other stated conditions.
Source reference: pp. 9–11, OrderActs & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892
Original Court PDF
HARUN SHEKH S/O. KHAJA HUSEN,vsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
