Dismissed¶59

Ashwathreddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2025CRL.A/1410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru — CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025 under S.14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act, decided 12.08.2025 by Justice S Rachaiah. Bail refused to accused Nos.1 and 3 of Crime No.74/2025 (Gudibande Police Station) booked under Ss.3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Ss.115(2), 118(1), 352, 74 r/w 3(5) BNS 2023; Court found prima facie material that the accused named the complainant's caste in a public place; S.18-A bar invoked by the State; appeal rejected.

What did the court decide?

On reading the entire averments of the complaint, the Court is of the considered opinion that, prima facie, there are materials to show that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 scolded respondent No.2 by naming her caste in a public place. ¶56

Ashwathreddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ASHWATHREDDY S/O SUBBAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

CHARAN S/O ASWATHREDDY AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT BRHAMANARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST 561 209 …APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. SATHISHKUMAR B.K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING

¶15

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

SMT. ASHA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. BRHAMHANARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 209 …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.275/2025, DATED 12.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE 1^ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHICKBALLAPUR BY ALLOWING THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BY ENLARGING THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.74/2025, FILED BY THE GUDIBANDE POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), (s) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 AND BNS-2023 OF SEC.115(2), 118(1), 352, 74 READ WITH SECTION 3(5), AS PER ANNEXURESe A, B AND C ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST, PENDING CONCLUSION OF THE BAIL OF THE TRIAL.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellants who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.74/2025 of the respondent - Police are before this Court seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 74 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’).

¶28

Factual matrix of the case:

¶29

It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.05.2025 at about 8.25 a.m., the Gudibande Head Constable had

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

received an information from the Government Hospital, Gudibande. He went to the spot and recorded the statement of respondent No.2 at about 9.45 a.m. As per the statement, it reveals that on 11.05.2025 at about 6.30 a.m., the goats of the respondent No.2 went in front of the house of the petitioners. Immediately, respondent No.2 went to the spot and brought the goats back to the house. In the meantime, the wife of petitioner No.1 was asking the respondent No.2 as to why the goats came before their house and she started abusing in filthy language. By that time, petitioner No.1 - Ashwathareddy also came to the spot and started abusing by using filthy language and also by naming the caste of respondent No.2. In the meantime, the husband of respondent No.2 returning to his house from the field after hearing the said quarrel, he intervened and enquired about the incident with the petitioner. By that time, petitioner No.2/accused No.3 Charan came from the house, suddenly, he rushed towards the husband of respondent No.2 and scolded by naming the caste and also assaulted him with a brick on the right eye and caused injury.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

When the respondent No.2 tried to intervene the said incident and in order to rescue her husband, the petitioner No.1 assaulted her with an axe on her right hand and caused injuries. The accused No.3 scolded the respondent No.2 in filthy language and torn her nighty and dragged her tuft and assaulted her with hands. The wife and daughter of Petitioner No.1 also assaulted respondent No.2 with their hands. On the basis of the said information, the Gudibande Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.74/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 74 r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶38

Heard Sri.Satish Kumar B.K., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶39

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in this case. No

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

such incident had taken place in the said place, in fact,

¶44

the appellants are having good reputation in the society.

¶45

It is further submitted that, the averments of the complaint would indicate that the incident had not taken in a public place. No such intimidation had taken place in front of the public. Therefore, the ingredients of provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act would not be attracted. Hence, the appellants may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions and they will abide the conditions imposed by this Court. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.

¶46

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and she further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively, they have assaulted the husband of respondent No.2 and further they have scolded the respondent No.2 and her husband by naming their caste. The averments of the complaint would indicate that there are materials to show that the petitioners No.1 and 2

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

have scolded by naming the caste of respondent No.2 who is the complainant in this case. Therefore, they are not entitled for bail in view of Section 18-A of SC/ST (POA) Act. Hence, appeal has to be rejected.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint before the Head Constable when she was taking treatment at the Government Hospital, Gudibande. The said averments of the complaint would indicate that the goats of respondent No.2 incidentally went in front of the house of accused No.2. Immediately, respondent No.2 rushed in front of the house of accused No.2 and she brought the goats back to her house. While she was coming back, the accused No.2 started scolding the respondent No.2 by naming the caste and insulted her in the public road. In the meantime, the husband of respondent No.2, while he was returning from the field to his house and asked about the incident. When respondent No.2 was narrating the incident to her husband, all of a sudden, accused No.1 who is the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:31597 CRL.A No. 1410 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

petitioner No.1 herein had started abusing him by naming the caste and assaulted the husband of respondent No.2. In the meantime, accused No.3 who is the petitioner No.2 herein came out of the house and assaulted the husband of the respondent No.2 with brick and caused injuries and also he scolded by naming the caste of the husband of respondent No.2.

¶56

On reading the entire averments of the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that, prima facie, there are materials to show that the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 have scolded by naming the caste of the respondent No.2 in the public place. Therefore, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail of the appellants are required to be rejected.

¶57

In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

The appeal stands rejected.

¶60

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶61

UN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Ashwathreddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwathreddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Papanna Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ravi K Vs Mr. Abhishek S Bhat

Sri.Vinod G Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Asif Vs State of Karnataka by

Nazeem M D Vs the State of Karnataka