Malleshappa @ Mallesha Vs State of Karnataka

SMT. SANNAMMA, W/O LATE NGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT ANCHECHOMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KERESANTHE POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. ASMA KAUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.375/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.218/2025 REGISTERED AT KADUR P.S. FOR THE P/U/S. 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 R/W SEC. 3(5) OF BNS AND U/S. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(s) AND 3(2) OF THE S.C/S.T. (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015, WITH A DIRECTION TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN THE SAID CRIME.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagalur in Crl.misc.No.375/2025.

¶24

The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Kadur Police registered a case in crime No.218/2025

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 352 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as 'SC & ST (POA) Act' for short).

¶29

The substance of the FIR is as under:

¶30

"ಈ �ನ ��ಾಂಕ 29-07-2025 ರಂದು ಮ�ಾ�ಹ� 13-30 ಗಂ�ೆ�ೆ , ��ಾ�ದು�ಾರ�ಾದ, ��ೕಮ� ಸಣ ಮ! "ೊಂ $ೇ% �ಾಗ�ಾಜಪ( 69 ವಷ� ಅಂ,ೆ ,ೋಮನಹ-., �ಾ�ಮ, ಕಡೂರು 1ಾಲೂಕು ರವರು 3ಾ4ೆ�ೆ 5ಾಜ�ಾ6 7ೕ8ದ ಕಂಪ9�ಟ; ಮು��ತ ದೂ=ನ >ಾ�ಾಂಶ@ೆ�ೆಂದ�ೆ , �ಾನು ಅಂA,ೋಮನಹ- ಯCD @ಾಸ@ಾ6ದುE �ಾ�ಮದ @ಾಸದ ಮ�ೆಯ ಎದುರು ಮ�ೆಯವರು 27/07/2025 ರಂದು ನನ� ಮಗGಾದ HೇI�ೆ ಸುJಾರು 9 ಗಂ�ೆಯ ಸಮಯದC,, ಎದುರು ಮ�ೆಯವ�ಾದ ��ೕಮ� ಭವ� ಮತುL ಯMೆNೕದ ಮೂರು ಜನರು >ೇ= ಹ$ೆD Jಾ8ರು1ಾL�ೆ ಅದ"ೆO �ಾನು ಮತುL ನನ� ಮಗಳQ ಸುJಾರು 12 ಗಂ�ೆ�ೆ ಕಡೂರು RCೕS 3ಾ4ೆಯCD ದೂರನು� �ಾಖCUರು1ೆLೕ@ೆ , ಅದನು� ಅವರು ಹ=ತು ಸುJಾರು ಸಂVೆ 5-30 "ೆO ಸಣ ಮ! ಆದ �ಾನು ಮ�ೆಯ ಮುಂYಾಗದCD ಕು-�ರು1ೆLೕ�ೆ ಆಗ ಮ$ೆDೕಶಪ( ಮತುL ಅವರ ಧಮ� ಪ��ಾದ ಯMೆNೕದ ಮತುL ಅವರ ಮಕOGಾದ ಭವ�, �ವ� �ಾರನು� "ೇ- 7ೕವ[ ದೂರನು� "ೊ]�Eೕ= "ೇ-�ಾಗ ನನ� ಮಕO-�ೆ ಏ"ೆ 5ೊ_ೆ�= ಅಂತ "ೇ-�ಾಗ ನನ� ಮಕO-�ೆ 7ೕವ[ ಏ"ೆ 5ೊ_ೆ�= ಎಂದು "ೇ- 5ಾಗ ಮ$ೆDೕಶಪ( ರವರು 7ನ�ನು� 5ೊ_ೆಯು1ೆLೕ�ೆಂದು 5ೇ-ದರು 5ೇ�ೆ �ೊ_ೆಯು�Lೕ�ಾ 5ೋ8 ಎಂದು "ೇ-�ಾಗ ಪಕOದCD ಇದE ಕ]�ೆಯನು� 1ೆ�ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ನನ�ೆ ತ$ೆ�ೆ 5ೊ_ೆದು ಆ ಸಮಯದCD �ಾನು "ೈ bೕ$ೆ�L�ೆ "ೈ�ೆ IದುE ರಕL �ಾಯ@ಾ6�ೆ ಮತುL "ಾC�ೆ 5ೊ_ೆ��ಾE�ೆ ಮತುL ಪಕOದCDದE ಭವ� "ೈ c8ದು ನೂಲುAದಳQ �ವ� ಬಂದು "ೆ�ೆ��ೆ

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Hಾ=UದಳQ ಆಗ �ಾನು "ೆಳ�ೆ I�ೆE ಆಗ ಪಕOದCDದE ಯMೆNೕಧ ನನ�ೆ "ಾC7ಂದ ತು-ದಳQ ಮತುL "ಾC7ಂದ 5ೊ_ೆದಳQ 7ೕವ[ �ಾ=ದ�ರು eೕಳQVಾ�ಯವರು ಮತುL ಸುಡು�ಾಡು UದEರು 7ೕವ[ Vಾಗ "ಾC Jಾ8 ಎಂದರು ಇಲD 7ಮ!ನು� >ಾfಸು1ೆLೕ@ೆಂದರು Vಾ� 7ಂದ�ೆ Jಾ8 gಾ�ಣ Hೆದ="ೆ 5ಾeದರು ಆಗ �ಾವ >ೆ]ೕಶh ನCD ದೂರು 7ೕ8ದರೂ ಏನೂ Jಾಡಲೂ ಆಗವ[�ಲD ಎಂದು 5ೇ-ದರೂ ಆಗ 112 �ೆ Jಾc� �-Uದರೂ ಅವರು ಬಂದ ತiಣ ತiಣ ಅCDಂದ 5ೋದರು ಆಗ 112 ನCD ಬಂದತಹ ಆಸ(1ೆ��ೆ 5ೋಗುವಂ1ೆ �-Uದರು ನಂತರ �ಾ�� 8-9 ಗಂ�ೆ ಆ6ದE=ಂದ ತಡ@ಾ6 ಬಂದು ದೂರು 7ೕ8ರು1ೆLೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು 7ೕ8ದ ದೂರನು� Ujೕಕ=U ಪ�ಕರಣ �ಾಖCUರು1ೆL."

¶35

It is not in dispute that the trial Court has already granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 to 4. The State has not preferred any appeal against the said order passed by the trial Court in respect of accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶36

On perusal of paragraph 13 to 15 of the judgment, the observations made by the trial Court are as follows:

¶37

"13. In so far as, petitioners No.2 to 4 are concerned, it is to be noted that except some general and bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed on their part. The petitioners No.2 to 4 are said to have abused and insulted the informant by taking the name of her caste and the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Act have been invoked against them in order to invoke said regard, but it is to be noted that in order to invoke said offences, the alleged insult, intimidation or abuse must be made in public view and in the case on hand, there is no averment in the

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

compliant to the effect that said insult, intimidation or absue was made in public view and it was witnessed by anyone other than the complainant and accused party. Having regard to the same, the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners No.2 to 4 and the question whether any of the offences punishable under SC and ST (POA) Act do attract against them is required to be unearthed in the investigation.

¶42

14. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court and our Hon'ble High Court in catena of decisions that the aforesaid provisions contemplated under Sections 18 and 18A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have no application where prima facie case is not made out and in such cases there is no bar to grant anticipatory bail. As it is difficult to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners No.2 to 4 herein from the material made available on record at this stage, this court is of the opinion that the bar created under Section 18 and sub-section 2 of 18A of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not applicable in the light of settled proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions in so far as petitioners No.2 to 4 are concerned as the averments made in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case indicating a case which attracts the applicability of the provisions of the said Act against them.

¶43

15. As the case has been registered against the petitioners No.2 to 4 for non-bailable offences, the apprehension of arrest on their part appears to be well founded and until the veracity of the allegations leveled against them is tested, the possibility of they becoming subject of humiliation if arrested cannot be ruled out."

¶44

6. The trial Court has duly appreciated the

¶45

material on record. However, it has committed an error in rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by accused No.1, who is appellant in the present case.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

On perusal of the FIR, I do not find any material

¶49

as to names of public who were present at the time of commission of the offence under SC & ST (POA) Act. Though the trial Court has observed that there is no prima facie case against accused Nos.2 to 4 in respect of offences alleged under the SC & ST (POA) Act, the trial Court has not expressed any opinion regarding accused No.1. At this stage, there is no prima facie case to attract the offences under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences and previous antecedents of the appellant, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Appeal is allowed .

¶52

ii. The order passed by the I Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Chikkamagalur in Crl.misc.No.375/2025 dated 22.08.2025 in

¶53

respect of this appellant/accused No.1 is setaside.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

iii. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶58

iv. The respondent - Police is directed to release the appellant/accused No.1 in the event of his arrest in crime No.218/2025 registered by Kadur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 352 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶59

a) The appellant/accused No.1 shall execute 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 investigation officer.

¶60

b) The appellant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

¶61

8 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:39601 CRL.A No. 1803 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶65

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶66

TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK

Malleshappa @ Mallesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malleshappa @ Mallesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Akkatayi W/O Ashok Naik Vs Smt. Sevanta W/O Saiduberad

Smt. Shaila W/O. Revanasiddappa Alias Revenappa Shivashimpi Vs Revanasiddappa Alias Revanappa S/O. Veerappa Shivashimpi

Sri Channabasappa S/O Shankarappa Benni Vs Sri Basaveshwar Dharma Fund Samsthe

M/S Classic Fincorp Reg Vs Sri Chitti Babu K

Sri S Suganchand Vs Sru B M Sadashivaiah

Sri Muniramaiah Vs State by