Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18795

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Parameshwarappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.A No.318 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prasad B S.
For the Respondents: Vinay Mahadevaiah, Mohan Kumar T.

Anticipatory bail may be granted in cases under the Special Act where no prima facie offence is made out, particularly when the complaint is a retaliatory counter-blast and lacks evidence of intent to humiliate based on caste identity, thereby overcoming the statutory bar under Section 18.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 352 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Anticipatory Bail - Bar under Section 18 of the Act - Whether a prima facie case exists - The court held that where a complaint is filed as a 'counter blast' following an earlier criminal proceeding and there is no material to indicate that the alleged abuse was committed specifically on the ground of the complainant's caste identity, the bar under Section 18 does not preclude the exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail. (Paras 6, 8, 10, 16, 18, 20)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of - Discretionary power - The court emphasized that when the allegations are fabricated or lack prima facie merit, the court has the authority to examine the contents of the FIR to determine whether the statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail is absolute or subject to judicial scrutiny. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
An incident occurred during a community celebration where a scuffle broke out between two groups. A cross-complaint was filed by the appellants alleging that the complainant's group had caused grievous injury to one of them. Subsequently, the respondent filed a separate complaint alleging offences under the special legislation regarding caste-based humiliation. The appellants sought anticipatory bail after the trial court rejected their application.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the complaint under the special legislation was filed as a counter-blast to an earlier criminal case. After reviewing the sequence of events and medical records, the court found an absence of prima facie evidence that the alleged insults were motivated by caste identity, concluding that the incident arose from a spontaneous quarrel rather than caste-based discrimination.

Issues: Whether the statutory bar on anticipatory bail for offences under the special legislation applies when there is no prima facie material to support the allegations and the complaint appears to be a reactive counter-filing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the 'intent to humiliate' requirement under the relevant sections must be linked to the underlying idea of untouchability and caste identity. Where the FIR allegations lack the essential elements of the offence and appear to be an afterthought to cover up a separate incident, the court is entitled to exercise its discretion to protect the liberty of the accused by granting bail.

Result: Appeal allowed; the order rejecting the bail application was set aside, and the appellants were granted anticipatory bail subject to specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. establishing the sequence of competing firs and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. parties' contentions regarding sc/st (poa) act applicability and statutory bar. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. requirement of intent to humiliate based on caste identity. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. scope of anticipatory bail despite section 18 exclusion. (Para 20)
5. exercise of judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.318 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

BETWEEN:

1. PARAMESHWARAPPA,

S/O LATE CHENNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

2. ARUNA,

S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

3. NAVEEN,

S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS,

R/O MADIKE CHILUR VILLAGE,

SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. PRASAD B S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY RURAL POLICE STATION,

SHIVAMOGGA,

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. YASHAVANTH S.,

S/O SRINIVASA,

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

R/O KORACHARA KERI,

HADONAHALLI VILLAGE,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2026 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.71/2026 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL OF THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN REJECTED. B. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.18/2026 OF RURAL POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 115(2), 352 R/W 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(2)(va)OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

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

Accused/Appellants on commission of offences punishable under sections 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 in Crime No.18/2026 registered before the Shivamogga Rural Police Station upon a complaint filed by the second respondent herein are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.71/2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') by which the application filed by them under section 482 BNSS is rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants taking this Court through the records, submits that the alleged incident had taken place on 15.01.2026 at about 10.00 p.m. He submits that on the said date and time, there was jatra in the village of the appellants. On the said occasion, an orchestra was arranged, in which certain Parashuram, Chethu, Malathesh, Thippesh, Venkatesh, Sureshappa, Abhi, and Yeshwanth of neighbouring village were dancing to DJ music right in front of the stage obstructing the view of the people who are seated in the front row, to which the appellant No.1, who is aged 68 years, had asked the said persons to dance by the side and the said persons got enraged and started abusing and accusing appellant No.1. The villagers intervened and advised the said persons not to create commotion which lead to further scuffle.

3. Thereafter, one of the members of the said group, who had already come with machete, had assaulted Arun Kumar-appellant No.2, son of appellant No.1 causing severe bleeding injuries. Due to which the said Arun Kumar-appellant No.2 fell unconscious to the ground. The said persons had further instigated one Thippesh to finish off Arun Kumar-appellant No.2. However with the intervention of appellant No.1 herein, Malleshappa and Manjapppa, the said Arun Kumar-appellant No.2 was taken to McGANN Hospital for treatment.

4. One Nagarajappa lodged a complaint on 16.01.2026 at about 1.00 a.m., before the Shivamogga Rural Police which was registered in C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18795

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM.G.S. Kamal, JParameshwarappa – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentCRL.A No.318 of 2026

Anticipatory bail may be granted in cases under the Special Act where no prima facie offence is made out, particularly when the complaint is a retaliatory counter-blast and lacks evidence of intent to humiliate based on caste identity, thereby overcoming the statutory bar under Section 18.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Parameshwarappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.A No.318 of 2026