Dismissed¶51

Smt Lakshmi @ Lakshmidevi C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025CRL.A/1634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused — Section 18-A bar, SC/ST (POA) Act; assault and abuse by naming caste alleged in complaint; offences under Ss.126(2), 152(2), 181(1), 304, 3(5) BNS 2023 and Ss.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST (POA) Act; Cr.No.134/2025 Hanur Police; Crl.Misc.No.281/2025 rejected 24.06.2025 by Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara; appeal under S.14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act dismissed by High Court of Karnataka (S Rachaiah, J., 28.08.2025); liberty reserved to Trial Court to decide bail application on same-day surrender.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the averments of the complaint, the appellants have not only assaulted the complainant but also scolded him by naming his caste. ¶51

Smt Lakshmi @ Lakshmidevi C Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, arrayed as accused in Cr.No.134/2025, are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail notwithstanding the rejection of their application by the trial court. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

In view of the Section 18-A bar, it is not appropriate to grant the appellants anticipatory bail.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the averments of the complaint, the appellants have not only assaulted the complainant but also scolded him by naming his caste.

¶51

Key takeaways

The averments of the complaint contain the ingredients of the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, and consequently the bar stipulated under Section 18-A of the said Act applies.ratio¶51
If the appellants surrender before the Trial Court, liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to dispose of the said (bail) application on the same day itself.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 1634 of 2025 (under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S Rachaiah, J.), decided 28.08.2025 — Four appellants, accused in Cr.No.134/2025 (Hanur Police, Chamarajanagar District) for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 152(2), 181(1), 304, 3(5) of BNS 2023, Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Amendment of Ordinance 2014 and Sec.3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, sought anticipatory bail; the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara had rejected their application in Crl.Misc.No.281/2025 on 24.06.2025. Perusing the complaint averments, the High Court found that the appellants had not only assaulted the complainant but also scolded him by naming his caste, that the averments contained the ingredients of the provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, and that the bar stipulated under Section 18-A of the said Act therefore applied; it held it was not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. Appeal dismissed; however, if the appellants surrender before the Trial Court, liberty was reserved to the Trial Court to dispose of the bail application on the same day itself.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1634 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMIDEVI C W/O MADESHA @ MAHADEVASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 439

¶11

SHRI BASAVARAJU S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 439

¶12

SMT LAKSHMI

¶13

W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

R/AT KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571439

¶17

SHRI AKASH K S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/A CHUNCHEGOWDANA KOPPALU VILLAGE

¶18

MIKKERE POST, MALAVALLI TALUK

¶19

MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430 … APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA. K.M., ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶25

BY HANUR POLICE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571439 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE BANGALORE 560 001

¶26

NINGARAJU @ KONDA S/O PUTTABHOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS KANDAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HANUR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST 571 439 …RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTSS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.134/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHAMARAJANAGARA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 126(2), 152(2), 181(1), 304, 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 2014 AND SEC.3(2) (v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the anticipatory bail dated 24.06.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.281/2025 by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 152(2), 181(1), 304, 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act Amendment of Ordinance 2014 and Sec.3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.

¶36

Brief facts of the case :

¶37

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was constructing a new house adjacent to the house of one Krishnegowda who is the father of accused No.2 and husband of accused No.3. One Prajwal who is none other than son of sister-in-law of the complainant was assisting in constructing the house.

¶38

It is further alleged that Amulya @ Puttalakshmi was found missing from her house who is none other than the daughter of son-in-law of Krishnegowda. The said Krishnegowda and along with others started assaulting and

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

abusing by naming the caste of the complainant stating that

¶43

the said Prajwal had taken the said Amulya along with him for marriage.

¶44

Further, it was known to Krishnegowda and family that both Prajwal and Amulya married each other. Therefore, the complainant was assaulted and abused by naming the caste on the pretext that he is the person who helped them to elope etc.

¶45

Heard Sri. Sanath Kumara K.M., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State.

¶46

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that on reading of the entire averments of the complaint, there is no whisper regarding mentioning the name of the caste. Therefore, the appellants are enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶47

Per contra , the learned HCGP vehemently submitted that the appellants have assaulted and scolded by naming the caste of the complainant. Hence, there is a bar under Section 18(A) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:33303 CRL.A No. 1634 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, the appellants have not only assaulted the complainant but also scolded by naming his caste. The averments of the complaint contained the ingredients of the provisions of ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’, as there is a bar stipulated under Section 18-A of the said Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant them anticipatory bail. However, if the appellants are surrendered before the Trial Court, the liberty is reserved to the Trial Court to dispose of the said application on the same day itself.

¶52

Ordered, accordingly.

¶53

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Smt Lakshmi @ Lakshmidevi C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmi @ Lakshmidevi C v. 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

Sri Satisha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ambareesha @ Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kempamma Vs Smt Subhadramma

Sri Thangamani Vs Sri C M Gangadhara Murthy

Smt. Devaki Vs Smt. Venkamma

Eshwar Gowda Vs Ravi R