Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act is barred unless evidence shows the complaint lacks prima facie merit.

This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST

(POA) Act’, for short) challenging the order passed by the

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (Special

Judge),

Koppal

in

Karatagi

Police

Station

Crime

No.235/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 354, 307 read with Section

149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

‘ IPC ’, for short) and under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r),

3(1)(w), 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

- 3 -

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to with the original rankings occupied by them

before the Trial Court.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that the appellants have been prosecuted on the basis of a

complaint lodged by one Renukavva dated 25.11.2022.

The allegations of the complaint disclose that on

25.11.2022 at about 4.25 p.m. in Sy.No.7 of Siddapur

when the complainant and her husband were in the land,

the

present

appellants

along

with

other

accused

trespassed into the land by holding sickle, hammer etc.

and abused them with reference to their caste and

threatened them that they will not allow them to stay in

the village. It is also alleged that they have also

attempted to assault the complainant. While so assaulting

by sickle, when the complainant in order to save herself

put her hand, she suffered injuries and the appellant No.3

Manjunath along with appellant No.5 pulled her saree,

pulled her hair and assaulted her by hands. It is further

- 4 -

alleged that the accused have also abused them with

reference to their caste. On the basis of the said

complaint, crime came to be registered in Karatagi Police

Station Crime No.235/2022.

The appellants have approached the learned

Special Judge by filing an application under Section 438 of

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘ Cr.P.C .’, for short) seeking anticipatory bail.

However, learned Special Judge observing that there are

allegations of caste abuse against the appellants and

prima facie material is there and also there is a bar under

Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, rejected the bail petition.

Against this order of rejection of bail petition, the

appellants are before the Court.

During the course of the arguments it is

submitted that the appellant No.5 was already arrested

and enlarged on bail and appeal filed by him was not

pressed and accordingly dismissed.

- 5 -

6.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for appellants and learned H.C.G.P. for the

respondent-State. Perused the records.

7.

Learned counsel for appellants would contend

that a false complaint is filed and there was a civil dispute

between the parties and the appellants have filed an

application seeking podi of the land before the Deputy

Commissioner. In order to overcome the same, this false

complaint is lodged. He would also contend that the bar

under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act does not come in the

way of granting anticipatory bail as prima facie it is

evident that it is a false complaint and abuse of process of

law. He would also specifically assert that the appellant

Nos.2 and 4 are womenfolk and fall under exception.

Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeal by granting

anticipatory bail to appellants No.1 to 4.

8.

Per contra, learned H.C.G.P. would seriously

opposes the appeal contending that there is prima facie

material as against the appellants regarding they abusing

- 6 -

the complainant with reference to her caste and outraging

her modesty and in the said process they have also

inflicted some injuries on her body. Hence, he would

contend that there