Dismissed¶¶42

Mahesha K C v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2025CRL.A/1374/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.A. No. 1374 of 2025, decided 23 July 2025 by Justice M G Uma; anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; offences under Section 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act; Crime No.131/2025 of Mysuru South Police Station; informant/respondent Vijayakumar S; Facebook/social-media post concerning Scheduled Caste Minister Sri. Priyank Karge; refusal of anticipatory bail; challenge to Crl.Misc.No.864/2025 dated 23.6.2025 of VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The point whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is answered in the 'Negative': the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. ¶¶39

Mahesha K C Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶¶32

Court's answer

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Ground for refusal: the content of the Facebook post concerning the Scheduled Caste Minister was found to be not in good taste.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

Posting anything and everything on social media comfortably without being accountable has become a social evil, which weighed against granting anticipatory bail.ratio¶¶39
Observed (by way of illustration) that even if such words were used against any other person who may belong to the upper caste, that person may not be entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.obiter¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 1374 of 2025 filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — anticipatory bail sought in the event of arrest in Crime No.131/2025 of Mysuru South P.S., registered under Sections 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, based on a first information by Vijayakumar alleging that the accused posted a Facebook message referring to Sri. Priyank Karge, the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, who belongs to Schedule Caste, the content being not in good taste — order in Crl.Misc.No.864/2025 dated 23.6.2025 of the VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru sought to be set aside — Held: unaccountable posting on social media has become a social evil and the content of the post was not in good taste; even against an upper-caste person such words may not earn the relief of anticipatory bail — appellant held not entitled to anticipatory bail; point answered in the negative; appeal dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:27925 CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1374 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAHESHA K.C. S/O CHIKKA KULLA NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O SOONAGAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANKAR H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY MYSURU SOUTH POLICE MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶14

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

VIJAYKUMAR S

¶16

S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF BANDIPLAYA VILLAGE, ASHRAMA POST MYSURU TALUK - 570 001

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1

¶19

R2 - SD)

¶20

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.MISC.NO.864/2025 DATED 23.6.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL.DIST. AND

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:27925 CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CASE OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO131/2025 OF MYSURU SOUTH P.S, REGISTERED FOR THE O/P 352 OF BNS AND SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DIST. AND (SESSIONS) SPECIAL JUDGE MYSURU.

¶25

THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) in the event of his arrest in Crime No.131/2025 of Mysuru South Police Station, pending before the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352 of BNS and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Vijayakumar.

¶28

Heard Sri Shankar H.S. learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27925 CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶32

“Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶33

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The first information came to be filed by the informant against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The first information lodged by the informant discloses that, the accused has posted a message on facebook referring to one Sri. Priyank Karge, the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, who belongs to Schedule Caste. The content of the post is not in good taste to be reproduced. Even if such words are used for any other person who may be belonging to upper caste may not be entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail, as it has become a

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:27925 CRL.A No. 1374 of 2025

¶37

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

social evil as the person will think that they can post anything and everything on social media comfortably sitting in their place without being accountable. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶40