Allowed

Nanjunda K J v. State of by Dcre Police Station

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026CRL.A/2511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against dismissal of Section 482 BNSS application. Court quashed impugned order, allowed application, and enlarged anticipatory bail despite SC/ST charges due to inordinate delay in complaint, lack of charge sheet, and fabricated allegations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted. Impugned order set aside. Section 482 BNSS application allowed. Appellants discharged on executing self-bond of Rs. 1 lakh each.

Nanjunda K J Vs State of by Dcre… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2511 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NANJUNDA K. J. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O JAGADISH K.N. AIRTEL TOWER ROAD, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577 213.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

JAGADISH K.N. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O NANJUNDAPPA K.S. AIRTEL TOWER ROAD, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577213.

¶12

HARISHA K.J. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O JAGADISH K.N. AIRTEL TOWER ROAD, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK,

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577 213.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SMT. KOKILA H.B., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF BY DCRE POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01.

¶20

MAMATHA S. D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS OPP. MADAVA NILAYA, KASHIPURA, VINOBANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA, PIN-577204

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 08.12.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1201/2025 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.3/2025 REGISTERED BY DCRE P.S., SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF BNS, U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1201/2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Shivamogga (for short 'trial Court').

¶30

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, Shivamogga DCRE Police have registered the case in Crime No.3/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for commission of offence under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and submitted F.I.R. to the Court. The appellants have filed application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1201/2025 and the same came to be dismissed on 08.12.2025. Being

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

aggrieved by the impugned order passed, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court has erred in mechanically applying the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act without considering the well settled legal position that the said bar is not absolute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

¶36

case of "Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India" reported in 2020 (4) SCC 727, has clearly held that if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, the bar created by Section 18 shall not apply. The allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act are clearly an afterthought and fabricated, introduced solely with an intention to harass the appellants and to invoke the stringent provisions preventing anticipatory bail. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act does not operate in the present case. The entire case is based on a consensual relationship between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2, which did

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

not culminate in marriage. From the complaint itself, it is crystal clear that respondent No.2 voluntarily accompanied appellant No.1 on multiple occasions over a period of 5 months from May, 2025 to September, 2025 to a hotel and maintained physical relations. The relationship was consensual, and the allegations of forcible sexual intercourse are a patent afterthought made only after the marriage proposal was declined by the family of appellant No.1. Non-filing of the case immediately after the alleged incident in May, 2025 and not lodging complaint for more than 5 months despite the alleged incidents, clearly demonstrate consent and willing on the part of respondent No.2. Hence the complaint filed under Section 69 of BNS is not maintainable either in law or in facts. Further it is submitted that the allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act appears to be fabricated and are an abuse of protective legislation enacted for the welfare of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. If appellant No.1 was aware of respondent No.2's caste from the beginning of their

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

relationship during their B.Ed.course, there was no reason whatsoever why he would have continued the relationship for such an extended period or introduced her to his family members including appellant Nos.2 and 3 and allowed discussions regarding marriage to proceed, till 08.11.2025.

¶43

The alleged caste-based abuse on 08.11.2025 is conveniently timed after the relationship soured and the marriage proposal was declined and appears to be a desperate attempt to invoke the stringent provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act to prevent the grant of bail and to harass the appellants. Hence, allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act are liable to be rejected. The delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint is fatal to the case of the prosecution and indicates deliberation, consultation and fabrication of allegations particularly the caste based allegation under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On all these grounds, he sought to allow this appeal.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

As against this, the learned HCGP Sri.M.Diwakar

¶48

Maddur, would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and rightly rejected the application filed under Section 482 of BNSS and sought for dismissal of this appeal.

¶49

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, Shivamogga DCRE Police have registered the case in Crime No.3/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission of offences under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The date of incident shown in the FIR is commencing from 08.05.2025 till 08.11.2025. The complaint came to be filed on 13.11.2025. There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Though the FIR is submitted on 13.11.2025, even after the lapse of 60 days from the date of receiving the FIR, the Investigating Officer has not submitted charge sheet against the

¶50

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

accused as required under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995'). Even the Investigating Officer has not explained in writing about to the delay in filing charge sheet in accordance with Sub-Rule 2(A) of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995. Till this date, even the Police have not placed any material before this Court about taking steps for arrest of the accused. The alleged commission of offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Taking into consideration the abnormal delay in filing the complaint and nature and gravity of offence and previous antecedents of the appellants, not taking any steps by the Investigating Officer as to the arrest of the accused even after lapse of more than 2 months from the date of registration of F.I.R. and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sub-Rule 2 and 2(A) of Rule 7 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995, I am of the opinion that it is

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:2972 CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

just and proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶59

ii. The impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1201/2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Shivamogga is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 482 of BNNS, 2023 is allowed.

¶60

iii. The appellants shall be released on bail on executing a self bond of Rs.1,00,000/each with one surety each for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.3/2025 of Shivamogga DCRE Police.

¶61

iv. The appellants shall assist the Investigating Officer for investigation.

¶62

v. The appellants shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶63