Disposed¶48

Smt Chandrika v. State by

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026CRL.A/738/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 18 bar SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; BNS 2023 Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5); SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a); Crime No.24/2026 Kundapura police; Crl.Misc.No.570/2026 I Addl. District & Sessions Judge Udupi/Kundapura; CRL.A No.738 of 2026; NC: 2026:KHC:26075; HC-KAR; Justice S Rachaiiah; appeal disposed with regular-bail direction.

What did the court decide?

No anticipatory bail granted; appeal disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail petition on merit if the appellants approach for regular bail. ¶48

Smt Chandrika Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No anticipatory bail granted; appeal disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail petition on merit if the appellants approach for regular bail.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellants (accused Nos.1 and 2) in Crime No.24/2026 despite the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act raised by the averments of the complaint and the gravity and nature of the offence.

¶41

Court's answer

On consideration of the rival submissions and the averments of the complaint (which indicate the complainant was insulted by naming her caste in public and threatened with dire consequences), and having considered the gravity and nature of the offence, the Court held that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act to grant the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail petition, if the appellants approach for regular bail, on merit.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2026 (filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015), High Court of Karnataka (S. Rachaiiah, J.; oral judgment dated 03.06.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:26075). Appellants (accused Nos.1 and 2) in Crime No.24/2026 of respondent-police — registered for offences under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 352 and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 — sought to set aside the order dated 15.04.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.570/2026 of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) and obtain anticipatory bail. Prosecution case: the complainant, a Scheduled Tribe member running a fancy store at Haladi, was allegedly induced to invest Rs.3,80,000/- on 11.12.2024 and a further Rs.17,00,000/- on different occasions on assurances of doubled returns/bonds; receiving none, she was threatened and insulted by naming her caste. On perusal of the complaint averments and considering the gravity and nature of the offence, the Court held that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act to grant the relief. The appeal was disposed of, with the Trial Court directed to dispose of the bail petition on merit if the appellants approach for regular bail.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26075 CRL.A No. 738 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT CHANDRIKA

¶8

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O KRISHNAYYA JOGI, R/AT 1-142, ANKADAKATTE, KOTESHWARA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 222.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O KRISHNA.K R/AT KAMMARDI, CHAVALAMANE, CHIKKAMAGALURU

¶11

DISTRICT – 577 125.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY KUNDAPURA POLICE, KUNDAPURA

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26075 CRL.A No. 738 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

SMT. YASHODA W/O RAVI MARATI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KALLATE, 76 HALADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 222.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

¶23

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/04/2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.570/2026, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST BY SHIRVA POLICE STATION FOR CRIME.NO.24/2026, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 352, 351(2) READ WITH SECTION.3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND SECTION.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:26075 CRL.A No. 738 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to set aside the order dated 15.04.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.570/2026 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura) and for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.24/2026 of respondent No.1-Police for the offences under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC & ST Act’).

¶31

Factual matrix of the case:

¶32

It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant was running a fancy store at Haladi and she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. She was induced by the appellants to invest amount with them and thereby she would get double the amount. Believing their words, the complainant is stated to have invested amount of

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26075 CRL.A No. 738 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Rs.3,80,000/- on 11.12.2024. On her investment, she was assured that the bond would be reached to her at the earliest. Again, it is stated that the complainant had invested Rs.17,00,000/- on different occasions; however, she had not received any bonds from the concerned agency. When she went and asked about the bonds, she was threatened by the appellants not only for her life, but also she had been insulted by naming her caste. Hence, she lodged a complaint. Based on the said complaint, the respondent - police have registered a case and conducting the investigation.

¶36

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shetty K., learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Asma Kouser, learned Addl. Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the averments of the complaint are baseless and false and they are concocted for the purpose of implicating the appellants in the false case. The appellants are innocent of the alleged offences. The investigation is under progress. They would cooperate

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26075 CRL.A No. 738 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

with the investigation in the event of their release on bail. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions. The appellants would abide by the conditions in the event of their release on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.

¶41

Per contra , learned Addl. Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate the ingredients of the provisions of SC & ST Act. Such being the fact, there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable. Making such submissions, the learned Addl. Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 State prays to reject the appeal.

¶42

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that the averments of the complaint, of course, would indicate that the complainant had been insulted by naming her caste in public and also she had been threatened with

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26075 CRL.A No. 738 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

dire consequences. Having considered the gravity and nature of offence, I am of the considered opinion that there is a bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act to grant the relief.

¶46