Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 12.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge in Crl.Misc.No.4638/2025 and Crl.Misc.No.4650/2025 granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2/Accused No.1 (Ravichandran H.R.) and Respondent No.2/Accused No.2 (Nayeem Noor) in Crime No.122/2025 are liable to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the Senior Counsel drew attention to the Trial Court order showing that the accused had been granted regular bail by furnishing sureties, the Court considered it appropriate to dismiss the criminal appeals; accordingly both appeals stand dismissed.

Key takeaways

On perusal of the complaint averments, the Court observed that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste and was owner of Sy.No.352/5 at Beguru Village; Respondent No.2 and others, intending to throw him and his family out of lawful possession, trespassed with men and machine, demolished the structures and two temples, thereby taking the law into their hands and not following due process; the Trial Court nonetheless granted anticipatory bail contrary to the provisions of the Act.obiter¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeals under S.14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 — cancellation of anticipatory bail — Complainant (appellant) challenged the Special Judge's orders dated 12.05.2026 in Crl.Misc.Nos.4638/2025 and 4650/2025 granting anticipatory bail to Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.122/2025 of Begur Police Station, alleging trespass by 400 to 500 persons upon the complainant's Scheduled Caste-owned property in Sy.No.352/5, Beguru Village, demolition of Renuka Yellamma and Muneshwara temples using five JCB machines and robbery of 50 grams of gold articles — Appellant contended the Trial Court granted bail despite the bar under Section 18(A) of the Act — Court observed that the complaint averments indicated the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste, that Respondent No.2 and others took the law into their hands without following due process, and that the Trial Court granted anticipatory bail 'contrary to the provisions of the Act'; however, as the accused had meanwhile been granted regular bail by furnishing sureties, the Court held it appropriate to dismiss the appeals — Held: Both Criminal Appeals dismissed (S RACHAIAH, J.).

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010357262026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 910 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2026

IN CRL.A No. 910/2026

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJU,

AGED 32 YEARS,

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

S/O MUNISWAMI @ MUNISHAMI

@CHINNAPPA,

NO.1115, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, BEGUR, BANGALORE – 560 068.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SUMAN HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010357262026

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

RAVICHANDRAN H.R,

S/O RAJASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.748, 18^TH MAIN, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 095.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. V. ANOOPKUMAR., HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. GAGAN M. R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2026, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.4638/2025, PASSED BY SESSIONS COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME.NO.122/2025 OF BEGUR POLICE STATION AND ETC.,

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

3 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010357262026

IN CRL.A NO. 909/2026

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJU

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMI @MUNISHAMI @CHINNAPPA, NO.1115, NEAR ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, BEGUR, BANGALORE – 560 068.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SUMAN HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY BEGUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

BENGALURU – 560 001.

MR. NAYEEM NOOR, C/O NOOR MOHAMMED OMER, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.88, MOSQUE ROAD,

OPP. KFC, FRAZER TOWN,

4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010357262026

BENGALURU – 560 005.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. V. ANOOPKUMAR., HCGP FOR R1; BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA., SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. AMAR ALEXANDER CORREA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2026, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.4650/2025 BY THE SESSIONS COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRIME NO.122/2025 REGISTERED BY THE BEGUR POLICE STATION.

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.07.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

5 -

CNR: KAHC010357262026

CAV JUDGMENT

The appellant is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.122/2025 filed by the respondent – Police and also seeking to set aside the order dated 12.05.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.4638/2025 on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Bengaluru.

Factual matrix of the case:

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had constructed a residential house and Renukadevi temple in Sy.No.352/5 of Beguru Village. On 28.05.2025 at about 12.30 in the midnight, the appellant along with 400 to 500 members had trespassed the property of the complainant and kidnapped the relatives of the complainant in a car and after sometimes they brought two persons. In the mean time, the said persons who had trespassed the property had demolished Renuka Yellamma temple and Muneshwara temple by using five JCB machines and robbed 50 grams of golden articles and also jewels. It is further stated that they destroyed trees and abused them in a filthy language etc.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010357262026

Based on the said complaint the respondent – Police registered a case, conducted investigation. The investigation is under progress. In the mean time, the appellant had approached the Trial Court for anticipatory bail. The appellant had been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, this appeal is to set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant who is the complainant submits that the averments of the complaint are very clear that the complainant and his family members were thrown out from their properties. They have been dispossessed from their property knowingly that they belonged to Scheduled Caste without following the due process of law. Therefore, it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens of this Country.

It is further submitted that the Trial Court granted bail even though there is a bar under Section 18(A) of the Act which is contrary to the intent of the legislature and also the act. Therefore, the bail granted by the Trial Court has to be set

7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010357262026

aside in order to secure the ends of justice. Making such submissions learned counsel for the appellant/complainant prays to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court.

Per Contra , learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sandesh J Chouta, for respondent vehemently submitted that setting aside the order of bail to a person is a serious issue which relates to the fundamental rights of such person. The Courts are required to deal with in such matter by exercising due care and caution. Such act cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

It is further submitted that if an order for bail has been obtained on playing fraud or violation of any bail conditions, such bail orders can be set aside after having followed the due process of law. In the present case on hand, even on reading the averments of the complaint in its entirety, ingredients of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act do not gets attracted. Under such circumstances granting of anticipatory bail is proper and appropriate. Therefore, this appeal has to be dismissed. Making such submissions learned Senior Counsel prays to reject the appeal.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010357262026

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it would indicate that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste and he is stated to be the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.352/5 situated at Beguru Village. The said land has been inherited by him through his ancestors and he has been in possession of the property. The respondent No.2 and others with an intention to throw away him and his family members from their lawful possession, trespassed the said property along with men and machine, demolished the entire structures which was erected in the said land and also demolished two temples. The manner in which the respondent No.2 and others had behaved certainly would indicate that they had taken the law into their hands and also it can be inferred that they had not followed the due process of law. However, the Trial Court granted anticipatory bail contrary to the provisions of the Act.

Be that as it may, the learned Senior Counsel drawn

my attention to the order of the Trial Court, wherein, the appellant had been granted regular bail by furnishing sureties.

9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36751 CRL.A No. 910 of 2026 C/W CRL.A No. 909 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010357262026

Having considered the said aspect it is appropriate to dismiss

this criminal appeal.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

These Criminal Appeals stands dismissed .

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3