Sri Nagesha M C Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI NAGESHA M C S/O CHANDRAPPA M D, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT H MELANAHALLI, GANADHALU POST, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT, PIN 572218. (AS PER AS ADHAR CARD)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 01.

¶16

SMT. BHAGYA B A, W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, 4TH CROSS, NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL, NELAGADARANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

HC-KAR

PIN 560073.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P. FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT R/W. SECTION 482 OF BNSS ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2026 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.551/2026 BY C/C.LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE BENGALURU, CCH-71 AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 74,126(2),351(2),115(2) AND 352 OF BNS ACT THE SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, UNDER SEC.3(1)(r)(s) IN THEIR CRIME NO.25/2026 OF RESPONDENT PEENYA P.S. BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED HONBLE COURT OF C/C. LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE BENGALURU CCH-71.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is by the accused in Crime No.25/2026 registered in Peenya Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 ( SC&ST(POA)Act for short) and under Sections 74,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

126(2), 351(2), 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 ( BNS Act ), being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.551/2026 on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Bengaluru,

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a Supervisor of R.A. Fashion Garments Factory, where the respondent No.2-complainant is working as a Tailor. It is in the usual course of business, the appellant had supervised the quality of tailoring work by the respondent No.2 - complainant. The complaint is filed only with an ulterior motive without any substance. He submits that perusal of the complaint do not reveal commission of any offence. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal.

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader justifying the order impugned and also referring to Section 18 of the SC&ST(POA) Act submits that there is a legal bar for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, seeks for rejection of appeal.

¶33

Despite service of notice to respondent No.2 - de facto complainant is not present.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶37

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the records.

¶38

A complaint dated 13.01.2026 came to be filed by respondent No.2- de facto complainant. The contents of complaint are as under:

¶39

"ಈ �ೕಲ�ಂಡ �ಷಯ�ೆ� ಸಂಬಂ��ದಂ�ೆ �ಾನು �ೕಲ�ಂಡ ��ಾಸದ�� ಸು�ಾರು 7 ವಷ�ಗ!ಂದ "ಾಸ"ಾ#ದು$ ಚನ&�ಾಯಕನ (ಾಳದ��ರುವ R. A. Fashion ಎಂಬ ,ಾ�ಂ�-. ನ�� ಕ�ೆದ ಆರು ವಷ�ಗ!ಂದ ,ಾ�ಂ�- ನ�� Tailoring �ೆಲಸ �ಾ0�ೊಂ0ರು�ೆ2ೕ�ೆ. ಈ#ರು"ಾಗ ಕ�ೆದ 3 4ಂಗ!5ಂದ ಅ7ೇ ,ಾ�ಂ�-. ನ�� ಾ,ೇಶ ಎಂಬುವವನು Tailoring �ೆಲಸದ��ದು$ ನನ,ೆ �ಾನ�ಕ"ಾ# 9ಂ:ೆ 5ೕಡು�ಾ2, <ಾ=,ೆ ಬಂದಂ�ೆ >ುಲ�ಕ �ಾರಣ�ೆ� ಅವಚ"ಾ# <ೈಯು42ದ$ನು ಆದAೆ ಈ Bನ �ಾ : 13.01.2026 ರಂದು ಸಂDೆ ,ಾ�ಂ�-. Eಡುವ ಸಮಯ ಸು�ಾರು 6 ಗಂHೆಯ�� ಾ,ೇಶನು �ೆಲಸದ �ಷಯ"ಾ# ನನ,ೆ 5ೕನು ಸIJಾ# Tailoring �ೆಲಸ �ಾಡು42ಲ� ಎಂದು DೋAಾ# ಗದI�ದನು, ಇದIಂದ �ಾನು 5ಮL �ೆಲಸ �ಾವM �ಾ0 ನಮL �ೆಲಸ �ಾನು �ಾಡು�ೆ2ೕ�ೆ ಎಂBದ$�ೆ� ಮತ2ಷುO DೋAಾ# ಗದIಸು�ಾ2 5ನ& ಅಮLP :ೊ�ೆ ಮುಂQೆ 5ನ&ಮLP Dಾ4�ಾ �ೇಯ <ೆವ��Rಂದು <ೈದು, �ಾನು ಮJಾ�7ೆ �ೊಟುO �ಾತ�ಾ0 ಏನ�ೆ� ಬU*ೕದು ಎಂದು �ೇ!7ಾಗ ಅವನು ಮತ2ಷುO �VO,ೆದು$ ನನ& ಮುಂ7ೆ ಬಂದು ತWೆ ಕೂದಲು 90ದು�ೊಂಡು �ೖ �ೕ�ನ ಬHೆO ಎ�ೆದು ನನ&ನು& ಅಡXಗVO ಬಲಕ�ೆ&,ೆ DೋAಾ# �ೈ=ಂದ YೊQೆದು �ೋವMಂಟು �ಾ0 ,ಾಯಪ0�ದನು ನಂತರ ಅಳ[�ಾ2 \Aಾ07ಾಗ ಅವನು ಸುಮL5ರ7ೇ 5ನ&ಮLP ಸೂ�ೆ ಮುಂQೆ, Dಾ4 �ಾ �ೇಯ ಎಂದು <ೈದು �ಾನು 5ನ&ನು& ಸುಮL�ೆ EಡುವMBಲ� ಒಂದು ಗ4 �ಾ^ಸು�ೆ2ೕ�ೆಂದು _ೕವ <ೆದI�ೆ Yಾ`ರು�ಾ2�ೆ. ನಂತರ �ಾನು aಾನ ತbc �ೆಳಗQೆ E7ಾ$ಗ ಅWೆ�ೕ �ೆಲಸ �ಾಡುವ Aೇdಾ ಪeDಾ ರ�ೕಶ ಮತು2

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ಇತರರು :ೇIದಂ�ೆ ನನ&ನು& ಎEf� 5ೕರು ಕು0� ಸ�ಾgಾನ ಪ0�ದರು �ೆಲ ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ನನ,ೆ ಪIಚಯ�ರುವ ನಮL ಸಂಬಂ�Jಾದ �ೕAಾಂಜ�ೇಯ ರವರನು& ಕAೆ� iಾjೆ,ೆ ಬಂBದು$ ಆದ$Iಂದ �ಾ,ೇಶ ಎಂಬುವವನು ನನ,ೆ ಅಡXಗVO ಸೂ�ೆಮುಂQೆ Dಾ4 �ಾ�ೆಯ ಎಂದು ತುಚk"ಾ# <ೈದು _ೕವ <ೆದI�ೆ Yಾ` �ೈ=ಂದ ನನ& ಬಲ �ೆ�ೆ&,ೆ YೊQೆBದು$ ಆತನ �ೕWೆ �ಾನೂನು ಕlಮ ಜರು#ಸ<ೇ�ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮL�� ೇ!�ೊಳ[m�ೆ2ೕ�ೆ ಮ�ೆ2 ನನ,ೆ �ಾ*ಯ ಒದ#ಸ<ೇ�ೆಂದು �ೇ!�ೊಳ[m�ೆ2ೕ�ೆ �ಾ,ೇಶನು ಒಕ��ಗ�ಾ#ದು$ �ಾನು ,ೋ� ಎಂದು ,ೊ42ದು$ ಉ7ೆ$ೕಶಪeವ�ಕ"ಾ# Dಾ4 ಬ,ೆo <ೈBರು�ಾ2�ೆ."

¶43

Perusal of the aforesaid complaint indicates that the appellant herein allegedly abused and physically assaulted and outraged the modesty of respondent No.2 - complainant on the issue of tailoring work. There is no reference to usage of any specific name/term/word indicating the caste of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant by the accused - appellant.

¶44

The Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 , at paragraphs 62, 69, 70, 72 and 80 has held as under:

¶45

"62. We would like to refer to the observations of this Court in Ram Krishna Balothia (supra) to further elaborate upon the idea of “humiliation” as it has been used under the Act, 1989. It was observed in the said case that the offences enumerated under the Act, 1989 belong to a separate category as they arise from the practice of ‘untouchability’ and thus the Parliament was competent to

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

enact special laws treating such offences and offenders as belonging to a separate category. Referring to the Statements of Objects and Purposes of the Act, 1989 it was observed by this Court that the object behind the introduction of the Act, 1989 was to afford statutory protection to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who were terrorised and subjected to humiliation and indignations upon assertion of their civil rights and resistance to the practice of untouchability. For this reason, mere fact that the person subjected to insult or intimidation belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) unless it was the intention of the accused to subject the concerned person to caste-based humiliation.

¶50

69. What appears from the aforesaid discussion is that the expression “intent to humiliate” as it appears in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 must necessarily be construed in the larger context in which the concept of humiliation of the marginalised groups has been understood by various scholars. It is not ordinary insult or intimidation which would amount to ‘humiliation’ that is sought to be made punishable under the Act, 1989. The Parliament, by way of different legislations, has over the years sought to target humiliation based on different grounds and identities which exist in the society. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeks to punish humiliation based on gender inequalities by specifically including the term ‘humiliation’ in the definition of “domestic violence”. Similarly, The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 includes treatment causing humiliation to a female employee and which may likely affect her health and safety within the definition of sexual harassment.

¶51

70. In our considered view, it is in a similar vein that the term ‘humiliation’ as it appears in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 must be construed, that is, in a way that it deprecates the infliction of humiliation against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes wherein such humiliation is intricately associated with the caste identity of such members.

¶52

72. It is clear from a plain reading of the aforesaid provision that any insult against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the ground of “untouchability” was punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of six months under the Civil Rights Act. With the passage of time, it was realised by the legislature that the Civil Rights Act was not adequately sufficient to tackle caste-based offences and the practice of “untouchability”, leading to the

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

enactment of the Act, 1989 introducing more stringent provisions for combating such practices. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 should, thus, be seen in the context of Section 7(1)(d) of the Civil Rights Act. Seen thus, the words “with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe” become inseparable from the underlying idea of “untouchability” which is sought to be remedied and punished by the Act, 1989.

¶57

80. At the cost of repetition, the words in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are altogether different. Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed earlier, the offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When we are considering whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste”.

¶58

Since the complaint do not disclose usage of any

¶59

specific term identifying the caste of respondent No.2complainant, at this juncture, this Court is of the considered view that no prima facie case is made out by the prosecution.

¶60

As regards bar contained under Section 18 of SC&ST(POA) Act, the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1886 at paragraphs 6, 6.1, 6.2 has held as under:

¶61

"6 .In light of the parameters in relation to the applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from aforediscussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 with express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr. P.C., 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.

¶65

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 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.

¶66

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

¶67

The accused - appellant is stated to be working as a

¶68

Supervisor of R.A. Fashion Garments Factory and permanent resident of Bengaluru.

¶69

12. Accordingly, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(1) Appeal is allowed.

¶72

(2) Order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.551/2026 on the file of the LXX Additional

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCHNo.71) is set aside.

¶77

(3) The appellant - accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2026 registered by Peenya Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 ( SC&ST(POA)Act ) and under Sections 74, 126(2), 351(2), 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

¶78

(i) The appellant - accused shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum.

¶79

(ii) He shall appear before the regular Court and obtain regular bail within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶80

(iii) He shall not influence or in any manner tamper with the prosecution witness.

¶81

(iv) He shall appear before the jurisdictional police station and mark his attendance on every alternate Sunday between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. and he shall co-operate with the investigation process till filing of the chargesheet or appear before them whenever called upon.

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:20365 CRL.A No. 490 of 2026

¶83

10 -

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

(v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶86

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

¶87

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Sri Nagesha M C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagesha M C v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Pawanakumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Parameshwarappa, Vs State of Karnataka

Mahammad Arshad Ulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Zubair Pasha @ Zubair Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kuruguttegowda, Vs State of Karnataka

S Subramanian Vs State CBI Police