Yashwanth Babu Vs the Station House Officer

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2026 PASSED BY PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CR.NO.242/2025 AND THE APPELLANT FURTHER PRAYS THAT GRANT BAIL AND PASS ORDER OF RELEASE FROM THE JUDICIAL CUSTODY

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Criminal Appeal No.130/2026 is filed by one Yashwanth Babu-accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2026 passed in Cr.No.242/2025 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sessions Court'), rejecting his application filed under Section 483 of BNSS (under Section 439 of Cr.P.C).

¶26

A complaint dated 12.12.2025 was filed by victimrespondent No.2 herein before the respondent No.1-Police against the appellant-Yashwanth Babu, his mother Kalamma and his cousin brothers namely Yogesh and Mahesh alleging;

¶27

(a) That the respondent No.2 had earlier given a complaint against the said persons before the Chamarajanagara Women Police Station alleging domestic harassment. The allegation of the

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

complainant is that the appellant-Yashwanth Babu is her husband and Kalamma is her mother-in-law and she was subjected to domestic harassment by them. That upon the said complaint, the police had summoned the said persons and advised them not to continue with the same and upon the undertaking given by them, the case was closed.

¶32

(b). That on 24.08.2025, son-in-law of the respondent No.2 had died of a road accident. As such, respondent No.2 had gone for funeral and when she returned home with her daughter on 14.09.2025, appellant-Yashwanth Babu had created a ruckus. Accordingly, she had given a complaint on 15.09.2025 to the Chamarajanagara Town Police Station. That on 07.12.2025, when she went to her husband's house, his mother-in-law Kalamma, abused her in the name of her caste. When the complainant went inside the house, said Kalamma had kept boiling water with an intention of throwing the same on her face. In the meanwhile, her husband the appellant herein had blocked the door preventing her from going out and had abused her in the name of her caste and his cousins Yogesh had pulled her by her hair and Mahesha had pulled her saree. Even the said persons had abused her in the name of her caste. Mother-in-law-Kalamma handed over a wooden log to her husband Yashwanth Babu,

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

instigating him to assault the respondent No.2. Accordingly, he had assaulted her on her legs. By that time, one Mahesh son of Mahadevaiah and Mahadeva Shetty were going on the street, heard the noise and had asked the accused persons as to why they were ill-treating a woman. That her husband Yashwanth Babu-appellant herein took the respondent No.2 on a bike to her daughter's house left her with a threat not to return to the matrimonial home, failing which she would be eliminated.

¶37

(c) That on 08.12.2025, Yashwanth Babu-appellant herein had sent messages on her mobile phone insisting her to have illicit relationship with third parties for money. That on 08.12.2025 at about 07.30 p.m. her husband Yashwanth Babu, the appellant herein had come to the house of her daughter in a fully inebriated condition and abused her publicly.

¶38

Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.242/2025 is registered by the respondent No.1-Police for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Section Sec 85, 126(2), 74, 115(2), 352, 118(1) 351(2) R/w

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Section 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023 against the appellant herein, her mother-in-law and his aforesaid two cousins.

¶43

Yashwanth Babu-appellant herein was arrested on 13.12.2025 and has been remanded to judicial custody and is in the confinement since then. Appellant had filed an application under Section 483 of BNS Act. By the impugned order, said application came to be rejected on the premise of there being a prima-facie case made out against the Yashwanth Babu-appellant herein.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant taking this Court

¶45

through the records submits that the respondent No.2 has claimed herself to be the wife of the Yashwanth Babu-appellant. He submits that appellant is not the husband of the complainant and there is no relationship of any nature between them and due to some personal vendetta, which apparently

¶46

grew on account of certain financial transactions, the respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint claiming herself to be the wife of the Yashwanth Babu-appellant. He submits even on merits a case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act cannot be made out and it could only be a case of domestic

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

violence. He further submits that to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, the offence must have been taken place within the public view and perusal of the contents of the complaint would indicate that such an act had allegedly been taken place within the four corners of the house. Therefore he submits even on merits, no prima facie case is made out requiring initiation of proceedings against the Yashwanth Babu-appellant under the provisions of the Act. He further submits that in any event, a charge sheet has now been filed by the respondent-Police and no custodial interrogation is required and the appellant- Yashwanth Babu is the permanent resident of Ramasamudra, Chamarajanagara Taluk. He has his own of house and agricultural properties in the said place. Further, he and his ancestors have been residing in the same place. He would abide by any conditions that may be imposed and co-operate with the trial. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶50

Learned HCGP, on the other hand submits that perusal

¶51

of the complaint would indicate that the abuse hurled at the respondent No.2 was seen by two witnesses. Therefore, there

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

is fulfillment of requirement of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. Since the prima facie case has been made out, though the charge sheet is filed, there is a very likelihood of appellantYashwanth Babu interfering with the course of trial. Therefore

¶55

he submits it is not safe to release the appellant on bail. Hence, seeks for rejection of the appeal.

¶56

Heard and perused the records.

¶57

Complainant-respondent No.2 has claimed herself to be the wife of accused-Yashwanth Babu. Perusal of the complaint would indicate that there was an earlier complaint filed by the complainant-respondent No.2 before the Chamarajanagara Women Police Station, who had apparently conducted conciliation and upon the undertaking given by the appellant-Yashwanth Babu, said matter was closed. The second incident has apparently taken place on 07.12.2025, when the appellant- Yashwanth Babu was at home and when complainant-respondent No.2 went to her husband's house, appellant- Yashwanth Babu, his mother and his cousins had abused her. The said averments indicate that the alleged incident has taken place within the four walls of the house of

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the appellant-Yashwanth Babu. There is no averment of such incident having taken place in the public view as contemplated under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarkand reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 as held that, an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act cannot be made out merely because the informant belonged to a Scheduled Caste unless if it is made out that the said offence has taken place in the public view. Though, the complaint indicate that certain Mahesh and Mahadeva Shetty intervened on they hearing the commotion, it is not clear from the complaint averments as to whether the alleged incident had taken place in the public view and the said persons had witnessed the respondent No.2 being abused in the name of her caste. This requires to be adverted to during the trial.

¶61

In any event, charge sheet has been filed, witnesses statements have been recorded. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no requirement of any custodial interrogation in the matter. Considering the fact that accordingly to the respondent No.2 appellant-Yashwanth

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Babu is her husband and also considering the fact that the appellant is a permanent resident of Chamarajanagara owning agricultural lands and residing therein since his forefather's time, this Court do not see any likelihood of he absconding or not making himself available for trial. Further, the offences alleged under the provisions of BNS, 2023 are neither punishable with life imprisonment nor death. The appellantYashwanth Babu is entitled to be released on bail, subject to stringent conditions. Accordingly, following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) Criminal Appeal No.130/2026 is allowed;

¶68

(ii) The impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed in Crime No.242/2025 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, is set aside.

¶69

(iii) The accused-appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.242/2025 registered by the Chamarajanagara Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Sections 85, 126(2), 74, 115(2), 352, 118(1), 351(2) R/w Section 3(5) of BNS, subject to the following conditions;

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:15396 CRL.A No. 130 of 2026

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

a. The accused-appellant shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶74

b) The accused-appellant shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶75

c) The accused-appellant shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶76

d) The accused-appellant shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶77

e) The accused-appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶78

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶79

RL

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Yashwanth Babu v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwanth Babu v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Chandrappa

Kiran @ Sunil Vs the State by Kyathasandra Police Station

Smt Shivamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Madhu Gowda M Vs Mar Harris

Nawaz Khan @ Nawaz Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Murali Vs State of Karnataka