Ravichandra B S Vs State of Karnataka

SMT HEMAVATHI H D W/O RAVICHANDRA B S, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, (BOTH THE APPEALLANTS NAMED RESIDING AT KADUR ROAD, BELAGURU POST, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577597)

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI J RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHIRTRADURGA DIST. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

B.R GOVINDARAJU, S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, COOLIE BY PROFESSION, BELAGURU GRAMA, HOSADURGA TALUK,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:34030 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2026

HC-KAR

CHITRADURGA-577597.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY SPL.,2ND ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN CRL.MISC.NO.210/2026 DATED 24.03.2026 AND THE APPELLANTS MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THERE ARREST BY THE SRIRAMPURA POLICE (S.H.O/P.I) HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA REGISTERED IN CR.NO.22/2026 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 352, 115(2), 74, 133, 118(1), 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r) (s),3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL.2ND ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURA.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Notice to respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.210/2026 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, wherein, anticipatory bail has been rejected to the appellants.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34030 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that a complaint came to be registered by the complainant before the respondent-Police, stating that the complainant and two others had been to the tank bund area to purchase fish. On 13.02.2026, at about 12:30 p.m., both the appellants were selling fish. However, they allegedly refused to sell fish to the complainant on the ground that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. It is further alleged that the complainant and others were threatened with dare consequences and insulted in public view. Hence, a complaint came to be registered against the appellants. Thereafter, the respondent- Police have registered a case against the appellants and charge sheet has been filed. In the meantime, the appellants had approached the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail. However, same came to be rejected. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the present complaint has been filed by giving a colour of caste abuse to what is eventually a trivial dispute. However, the said allegations are baseless and false. Even on reading of the entire averments of the complaint, it would not indicate any abuse in respect of the caste against the complainant or others.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:34030 CRL.A No. 1059 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Therefore, the appellants may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable bail conditions. They will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail.

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the averments of the complaint certainly would indicate the offence relating to The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, there is a Statutory Bar under the said Act to consider the anticipatory bail. Making such submission, he prays to reject the bail.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the findings of the order passed by the Trial Court, on going through the averments of the complaint, it is noticed that there are certain allegations levelled against the appellants which would attract the ingredients of the provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶37