Smt Bhagyamma N P Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT BHAGYAMMA N P W/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.A.G. WARD, NO.7 1^ST SIDDARAMESHWARA ROAD AJJAMPURA, AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. 577 547

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. S.K. KALLEGOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

LINGADAHALLI POLICE STATION REPTD. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MR SHIVAKUMAR S/O MURUGAIGH AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT ALADAMARA JAMEENU NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶19

SRI BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANNA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶20

SRI CHANDAMURTHY S/O CHIKKAHUNUMAIAH AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶21

SRI HARISH

¶22

S/O CHANDRAPPA

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶26

HANUMANTHAPPA

¶27

S/O SANNA KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶28

SMT ASHARANI D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶29

R/AT ALADAMARA JAMEENU NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶30

SRI CHANDAPPA

¶31

S/O SANNA RANGAPPA

¶32

AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

R/AT NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶36

SRI VASANTHA

¶37

S/O CHANDAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR

¶38

R/AT NANDI VILLAGE LINGADAHALLI HOBLI

¶39

TARIKERE TALUK

¶40

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 129

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP)

¶43

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

¶44

14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.MISC NO.343/2025.

¶45

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

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

The appellant who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.51/2025 of the respondent - Police is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and seeking to set aside the order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.343/2025 by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru.

¶52

Brief facts of the case:

¶53

The case of the prosecution is that, in furtherance of common intention on 20.07.2025, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that on 11.07.2025 around 11.30 a.m., the panchayat members of Sunnadahalli Gram Panchayat and other officials were entered the property bearing No.9 belongs to Adi Karnataka Community for the purpose of taking

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

possession of the said property which was being used by the said community for the purpose of drinking water. However, the family members of Chandrappa being the son of Puttappa, obstructed the officials in discharging their official duty.

¶57

The appellant herein being a lady, scolded the officials by naming the caste and assaulted the officials and others. Hence, a complaint came to be registered against the appellant and others in above said crime number.

¶58

Heard Sri.S.K.Kallegowda, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Pushpalatha, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 – State.

¶59

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the property belongs to the appellant. There is no open Well in the said property. The father of the appellant had filed a civil suit against Sunnadahalli Gram Panchayat and others in OS No.67/1979. The Court granted a permanent injunction.

¶60

It is further submitted that, later, the Secretary of Sunnadahalli Gram Panchayat filed a suit against the father of the appellant in O.S No.22/1982. The said suit

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

came to be dismissed. Thus, the complainant filed a false case in order to coerce them to hand over the possession of the property. The appellant being a woman aged about 50 years having some personal health issues. Therefore, she may be granted bail by allowing the appeal. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶65

Per contra, the learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1 - State vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that the appellant had scolded by naming the caste of not only the officials, but also the other members of the Gram Panchayat. Since there are serious allegations made against the appellant, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 – State prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the findings of the Trial Court, the complainant has narrated in the first information that the suit in O.S No.121/1981 was disposed of by granting a decree on 16.12.1982. However, N.B.Puttappa S/o

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Basappa was interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs to draw the water from the well, commonly known as Harijana Bhavi. A complaint came to be registered by one M.M.Shivakumar belongs to Adi Dravida community.

¶70

On reading of the entire averments of the complaint, the ingredients in respect of the community of a particular person has not been made out. Moreover, the Civil Court had granted relief of permanent injunction in favour of the appellant in respect of the disputed property. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶71

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶74

ii) The order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.343/2025 by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru, is set aside.

¶75

iii) The appellant / accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in

¶76

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35700 CRL.A No. 1723 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Crime No.51/2025 of respondent-police, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

¶79