Allowed

Divya Kaushal Garg v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026CRL.A/2580/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023. Court found no prima facie material for SC/ST Act offences and ordered bail on conditions pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; anticipatory bail granted to appellant/accused No.1 subject to furnishing bond and unconditional investigation by I.O within 20 days.

Divya Kaushal Garg Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2580 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DIVYA KAUSHAL GARG S/O UMESH CHANDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, FLAT NO-001, HARI HARA NIVAS, 7TH CROSS, RACHENAHALLI, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 077.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. PRANAYA D W/O DIVYA KAUSHAL GARG, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, FLAT NO-001, HARI HARA NIVAS, 7TH CROSS, RACHENAHALLI, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 077.

¶15

ALSO R/AT- HOUSE OF GRACE, 5TH CROSS, CHURCH STREET, VEERENAHALLI, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BANGALORE- 560 049 (AS POR L.P.T).

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1

¶18

SRI.TIMOTHY CHERLES, ADV. FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE ANTICIPATORY BAIL REJECTION ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.10926/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.71) in Crl. Misc. No.10926/2025 dated 18.12.2025.

¶26

The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Smt. Pranaya.D, Sampigehalli Police have registered the case in Crime No.503/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 85, 79, 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

All the three accused have filed application

¶31

under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. The trial Court has allowed the petition filed on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and granted anticipatory bail with conditions. However, rejected the bail application of the present appellant. Being aggrieved by rejection of bail, the appellant/accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.

¶32

Respondent No.2 appeared before this Court and filed statement of objection and sought for rejecting the appeal. Respondent No.2 has produced 13 documents and also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of;

¶33

i) Kiran v. Rajkumar JIvraj Jain and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886.

¶34

ii) S.Anbalagan v. A.Devarajan and Ors., reported in (1984) 2 SCC 112.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

iii) Priti d/o Ashok Chakranarayan v. State of

¶39

Maharashtra and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1805 .

¶40

I have examined the materials placed before

¶41

this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Smt.Pranaya.D, Sampigehalli Police have registered the case in Crime No.503/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 85, 79, 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶42

Accused No.1 is the husband of the

¶43

complainant, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parent-in-laws of the complainant. The appellant has produced the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant, prior to filing this complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the police have registered the case in LPT No.527/2025. In this regard, the present appellant/accused No.1 and his mother Smt.Uma Gupta/accused No.2 have filed

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Crl. Misc. No. 10070/2025 before the LXXI Addl. City Civil

¶48

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72) under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail and same came to be allowed on 19.11.2025 by granting anticipatory bail with conditions. After passing this order, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 01.12.2025. In the FIR, it is stated that the alleged commission of offence is between 28.11.2024 and 26.11.2025. There is a delay of 5 days in filing this present complaint. The complainant has not challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10926/2025. The averments pertaining to Crl. Misc. No. 10926/2025 are also included in the present complaint as the alleged offence commencing from 28.11.2024 till 26.11.2025.

¶49

Respondent No.2 has also not challenged the order passed by the trial Court as to the granting of anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 2 and 3. In the complaint, it is stated that her mother-in-law and husband followed the complainant in front of Manyata

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

residency where they both shouted caste slurs and publicly humiliated the complainant in the presence of residents and security guards. Though these allegations made in the complaint, the trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to the mother-in-laws, who is accused No. 2 and to accused No.3 in this case. Same is not challenged by the respondent No.2 or the State.

¶54

Additionally, even on careful examination of the contents of the complaint, it is crystal clear that the accused has not referred the caste while abusing the complainant before the public. The name of the security guards and residents also not disclosed by the complainant. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the considered view that, there is no prima- facie material to attract the alleged commission of offence under the penal provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. The other remaining offences are not punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for life and are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. Apart from this, though the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Investigating Officer has registered the case on

¶59

01.12.2025, till this day he has not issued the notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023. The conduct of the Investigating Officer reveals that the present appellant is

¶60

not required for custodial interrogation. Taking into consideration of the nature and gravity of offence, relationship between the complainant and the present accused/appellant who are husband and wife, previous antecedents of the appellant and also conduct of the Investigating Officer as well as on the principle of parity, it is just and proper to allow this appeal with conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) Appeal is allowed.

¶63

ii) The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru

¶64

(CCH No.71) dated 18.12.2025 in Crl. Misc. No.10926/2025 against this appellant is set aside.

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:1055 CRL.A No. 2580 of 2025

¶67