SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18685

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Shubhakar R – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.A No. 499 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prasanna Kumar S.
For the Respondents: Lakshman

The statutory bar under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against granting anticipatory bail is not absolute. Courts have the discretion to grant such relief if the complaint fails to establish a prima facie case at the threshold stage without requiring a mini-trial.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023 - Sections 351(2), 352 and 115(2) - Anticipatory Bail - Constitutional and statutory bar - Applicability under Section 18A where a prima facie case is not made out - Judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail when accusations are devoid of prima facie merits - Determination of 'place within public view' - Essential to consider whether the alleged incident occurred in the presence of members of the public or within the context of existing adversarial litigation between parties. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Statutory Bar - The bar under Section 18A of the Act is not absolute; courts retain discretion to grant relief if the complaint fails to establish specific ingredients of the offence on a prima facie basis at the very first blush, without conducting a mini-trial. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellants filed an appeal against the rejection of their anticipatory bail application by the trial court in a case involving alleged offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the new penal code. The dispute arose amidst existing civil litigation and claims of property possession between the parties. The appellants contended that the alleged abuse occurred in private and not within public view, and that the prosecution was initiated with ulterior motives due to pending civil disputes.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the presence of pending civil litigations and the specific location of the alleged incident raised valid questions regarding whether the incident occurred in a 'place within public view.' Given the specific facts, the Court held that the allegations did not prima facie satisfy the requirements of the Act, thereby overriding the statutory bar for anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether the statutory bar under Section 18A of the Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is not disclosed in the complaint, and whether the alleged incident occured in a place within public view.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 18A bar does not apply when a complaint fails to make out a prima facie case on its face. The judicial duty to prevent the abuse of the legal process and protect individual liberty necessitates granting bail when the complaint is clearly tethered to pre-existing civil litigation and lacks ingredients essential to the statutory offense.

Result: Appeal allowed. Order of the trial court set aside, and appellants enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. applicability of section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) prima facie in anti-caste law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. interpretation of 'public view' and 'intent to humiliate' under sc/st act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. effect of pre-existing civil litigation on the nature of 'public' presence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. discretionary bail power when prima facie elements of offense are absent. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT READ WITH SECTION 482 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2026 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1500/2026 BY THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGGE (CCH-71) AT BENGALURU AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2026 REGISTERED BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTION 351(2), 352 AND 115(2) OF BNS.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the accused in Crime No.37/2026 registered before the Subramanyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (‘SC & ST (POA) Act’ for short) and under Sections 351(2), 352 and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1500/2026 on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, by which the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 of BNSS has been rejected.

2. A complaint dated 06.02.2026 came to be filed by one Gopal alleging commission of aforesaid offences by the appellants herein, pursuant to which case in Crime No.37/2026 is registered. The contents of the complaint as found in the First Information Report reads as under:

“ΐėỳгу:06/02/2026

џẀΠĆ’,

ďỳĒỳΑĄỳΠхಳù,

ẃ—њłќђŁј—џĘ’―Ρ†ύďỳĒ’,

Ě’гхಳüџ—їхџ.

згѕ,

Ć’―†Ęỳψнгѓгĕ’Ġ’†ζќ—Βėỳхјļ,46ẀẂџ್,

Ģỳẃќė’їг.130,1ė’†еяĴџĥ’ķ,ẀяĴџĘỳಳŁ,еĞ’†ẄΣŅ,

йѓķџẄΣŅ,ẃ—њłќђŁј—џегĉ’,

Ě’гхಳüџ—їхџ-560061.Ą’ґẃ:ΘΧė’ύ,ċỳΎ:ě’―†Τ,

Fª ÉÄïï L.r. gopalam586@gmail.com, ªÉƨ ÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gï: 9448182586.

ĜỳїŁĞ’†...

ΤẂў: їїĻї—Ļ еяĴх·IJ, еĢỳшŁ ẁњĹхΣгѕ Ě’‡ѕ—, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ẃĸಳѕΡń їїĻ ċỳΎ

Βгѕė’ĜỳΉ,Ą’‡хΣгѕẄĠ’ńĜỳΉџ—Ẁẁ—ћуφќѓ—ķеẀџќхˆģ’ †φû

џẀџΤџ—ѕĺĄỳї―ї—уłќĄ’‡Ć’―ಳŅґ—Ą’―†Π.

и Λ†ґĨгя ΤẂўĄ’Ĩ ẃгњгΑΧѕгē’ Ć’―†Ęỳψ жѕ ėỳї— јΠΥẂIJ ċỳΎ ě’―†Τ

ъėỳгхĄ’Ĩ ĥ’†Πџ—ē’ķ†ė’. ẃ—Ĝỳџ— 60ªÀµ ÀðUÀ½AzÀ еĞ’†ẄΣŅ ќ—фŁ џĥ’ķ, уĚỳľಳќŀ ĕ’†Ẁĥỳĸїѕ

ẄΎķџ, ẀяĴџĘỳಳŁ Ćỳłќ, ąỳēỳ їгњφ 57/1/45 џΡń їќŀ кΠї ģỳĠ’ зѕĹ ċỳхẀї—Ļ

ẃĸġỳгѓΠẃĠỳ¯ их ж ċỳх ąỳΡ зѕ—Ĺ, кΠї йјЏ†хĄ’Ĩ Ħỳх― їќŀ ċỳΎў ћẀїĄ’Ĩ

ĄỳΝĹΠΧ, Θ.Θ.нг.Γ еΡń ąỳē’ ĜỳΉΧѕ—Ĺ,¸ ÀPÁðgÀѕ еΑ†їѕΡńџ—ѓķĕ’. еґńĕ’† зΎķ†ĉ’Ć’ ẃѕΠ

ċỳхĄ’Ĩ ẃгњгΑΧѕгē’ Ą’ґІгѕ— ˆΉĆ’†Ήхಳù ẃѕΠ ċỳхẀї—Ļ ґјĎỳΝẃ—Ẁ йĕ’ņẁΐгѕ

їуΡ ĕỳфĠỳΎхಳї—Ļ ẃ‗ΦIJΧĄ’―гΉџ—Ẁ њĆ’Ī ĜỳΨΎ њгΐѕ—Ĺ, жѕĹΠгѕ ėỳẀ÷ кΠї

ќ—фгяџ—хಳù ĥ’†ΠĄ’―гя— ẃѕΠ ċỳхẀ÷¸ ÀPÁðj ẃņѓ—ķ нгњ¨ÉÆÃqïð еї—Ļ Ħỳˆĕ’ĹẀ÷. и

ΐї ΐėỳгу: 06/02/2026 џгѕ— Ě’ΣĆ’Ī 11-20 хгĎ’ў ẃќўѕΡń їќŀ кΠї ĢỳΧхġỳѕ

ẁ—ћуφ ќѓ—ķ еẀџ ќх ˆģ’ †φ џẀџ— ẃѕΠ ċỳхѕΡń ĦỳˆѕĹ û ¨ÉÆÃqïð еї—Ļ ˆѓ—ķ

Ħỳу—ΎķѕĹ ΤẂў ΎΣѕ— ėỳї— ќѓ—ķ кΠї ќ—фгяџ—хġỳѕ Υł† ĥ’―†ќģ’†фφ Θ. Υł†

ẃ—Ğ’†ϋнο:-Υł†шгѕłјļнг,Υł†Ąỳгѓу—Ĝỳφ,Υł†Ğỳъќѓ—ķзѓџџ—ĥ’†ΠĄ’―гя—ẃѕΠ

ẃņΎķї њΣ Ħ’―†¯ Ą’†ಳĠỳ¯ ẁ—ћуφ ќѓ—ķ еẀџ ќх ˆģ’ †φ оĄỳ оˆ û оĠỳ ẀĐỳĴ їїĻ

ќхė’† зĕ’Ġỳń ΒΒĻгѕĠ’† зĤ’IJĠỳń ж¯ѕ—Ĺ, ĚỳĞ’―† зẀѓ—ķ ΒїĆ’ зĕ’† QüÀÄ ċỳΎĆ’ Ẅ—·IJѕĹẀė’†

нгѕ— ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV їїĻ ċỳΎ Βгѕė’ ĜỳΉ, їїĻ ќхė’†, Βгѕ— ċỳΧķ жΝѓ— нгѕ—

їїĻĄỳґφј·IJўї—ĻΨΉѕ—Ą’―гя—їїĻуĘỳಳĄ’ĨĦ’―Đ’ѕ—ẄĠ’ńĜỳΉѕџ—.жẃќўѕΡńėỳї—

уΎķїΡń ĦỳˆĄ’―гΉѕĹ ˜їĻѕ ĉ’‡ο еї—Ļ ˆѓ—ķ Ħỳˆџ—ēỳķĞ’. еẂIJџΡń еΡńѕĹ їќŀ кΠї

ќ—фгяџ—хಳù њгѕ— ъхಳ ΘΉΧѕџ—. їгѓџ еẀџ—хಳù зѕ— їїĻ жΧķ, зė’―Ļгѕ— ẃґ и

ċỳхѕ ΤẂўĄ’Ĩ њгѕĞ’ Β†ї— и кΠїΡń Ħ’†Ć’ цẀї їĐ’ẃ—Ύķ†ĝỳ ė’―†я—ē’ķ†ė’гѕ— Ą’―Ġ’

Ě’ѕΠĄ’Ħỳˆѕџ—.їгѓџėỳї—ẄΎķџѕĢ’ψģ’ †φжẃļē’łĆ’Ħ’―†¯ û ˜ˆē’ʼnјĐ’ѕ—Ą’―гΉџ—ē’ķ†ė’.

жѕĹΠгѕруĨΡхċỳΎĆ’ĥ’†Πѕẁ—ћуφ&еẀџќхˆģ’ †φû зњľџ—¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV

їїĻ ċỳΎў Βгѕė’ ĜỳΉѕĹґńĕ’† еĢỳαў ẁњĹхΣгѕ Ě’‡ѕ—, Ą’‡хΣгѕ ẄĠ’ń ĜỳΉ, Ą’―Ġ’

Ě’ѕΠĄ’ Ħỳˆџ—Ẁ њĆ’Ī ẁ—ћуφ & ˆģ’ †φû

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top