Sri S B Prajwal Vs State by Rt Nagar Ps

SMT. SMITHA W/O S.D. PRAJWAL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, GANGAAPPA, BLOCK GANGANAGAR RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 561 203 MOB NO. 8904325867

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. KUMUDA T.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.02.2026 IN CRIMINAL MIS NO.11059/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CCH-71 AT BANGALORE CITY AND KINDLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY ORDERING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO. 131/2025.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:23810 CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

The appellants are the accused in Crime No.310/2025 registered by the respondent-police station for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶34

2. A complaint dated 28.11.2025 came to be filed by respondent No.2/de-facto complainant alleging that after her divorce in the first marriage, she contacted second marriage with accused No.1/appellant No.1 herein on 28.07.2025. She had uploaded her profile including name of her caste as Valmiki community. After the marriage, accused No.1 abused her. Accused

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23810 CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

No.1 was suffering from psychological issues. Accused No.2, the mother of accused No.1 and other accused have abused her alleging that person like her from the SC/ST community should not live with the people of their community, thereby they humiliated her. Accordingly complaint was registered for the offences noted above.

¶38

3. Appellants have filed an application seeking grant

¶39

of anticipatory bail which has been rejected by the trial Court on 07.02.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶40

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶41

submits that no prima facie case is made against the appellants. Admittedly, there is a marriage solemnised with the consent and concurrence of the parties. The domestic dispute, if any, cannot be converted and prosecuted under the Special Enactment, terming it to be an offence under Section 3(1)(r)&(s), which the trial Court

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:23810 CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

has not appreciated and hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal and grant of anticipatory bail.

¶46

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/

¶47

de-facto complainant referring to the statement of objections filed, submits that there are enough and more documentary evidence indicating physical and mental harassment caused by the appellants. It is alleged that the appellants are habitual offenders and accused No.1 had earlier married to one Rachana and had ill-treated the said person. As such, they are not entitled for the bail.

¶48

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the appeal submits that offences alleged against the appellants are one to be tried under the provisions of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') and there is a bar under Section 18A of the Act for grant of Anticipatory bail. Hence, he seeks for rejection of the appeal.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:23810 CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶53

8. Though the marriage between accused

¶54

No.1/appellant No.1 herein and the de-facto complainant

¶55

is not denied. What emanates from the contents of the complaint is that the accused/appellants herein had abused respondent No.2/de-facto complainant in the name of her caste. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant has alleged that in her matrimonial profile, she had uploaded the name of her caste as Valmiki. In the complaint, it is further alleged that she was subjected to harassment by the appellants, alleging that a person from 'SC/ST community' should not stay with them. The said allegations are made in the house of the appellants/accused. What emerges from the above is there is no specific reference to the name of her caste and the said allegations have been made within the house of the appellants/accused which cannot be termed either as an abuse in the name of caste or in the public view as held

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:23810 CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria

¶60

vs. The State of Kerala¹ . Further, as regards the bar

¶61

contained under Section 18A of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and

¶62

Another² at paragraphs 6, 6.1 and 6.2 held as under:

¶63

"6. In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr.PC, it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces specific accusations of having committed the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.

¶64

6.1 The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have not been made out and that the Page 18 of 23 accusations relating to the commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits, the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.

¶65

6.2 Non-making of prima facie case about the commission of offence is perceived to be such a

¶66

1 2024 SCC Online SC 2249

¶67

2 2025 INSC 1067

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:23810 CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

situation where the Court can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to conduct a mini trial.

¶72

9. Thus, perusal of the complaint do not prima facie indicate commission of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the appellants have made out the ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The appeal is allowed .

¶75

ii) The order dated 07.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.11059/2025 by the Court of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) is set-aside .

¶76

iii) The appellants shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.310/2025 registered by the respondent-Police, subject to the appellants executing self bond for a sum of

¶77