##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23810

CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. S.B. PRAJWAL

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

S/O BASAVARAJU

AADHAR NO. 2011 7669 8231.

2. SMT. RIMALAKSHI M.H

W/O.BASAVARAJU.

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

AADHAR NO. 9287 5470 7284

3. SRI. BASAVARAJU S.S

S/O. SAKEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

Digitally

AADHAR NO. 9741 7587 8992

signed by

SUMA B N

Location:

APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2

HIGH

COURT OF R/AT NO.17, 2ND FLOOR,

KARNATAKA

2ND CROSS, GANGAAPPA,

BLOCK GANGANAGAR RT NAGAR,

BANGALORE - 561 203.

4. SRI. MANJUNATHA M.H.

S/O HANUMEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

AADHAR NO. 2710 6680 4320

R/AT NELAMANGALA

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23810

CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

HC-KAR

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. H.M. MADHUSUDHANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY RT NAGAR PS

BENGALURU CITY.

REPRESENTED BY

THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,

VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SMT. SMITHA

W/O S.D. PRAJWAL

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,

GANGAAPPA, BLOCK GANGANAGAR

RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 561 203

MOB NO. 8904325867

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1;

SMT. KUMUDA T.A, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. K. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,

2015 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

07.02.2026 IN CRIMINAL MIS NO.11059/2025 PASSED BY THE

HONBLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CCH-71 AT

BANGALORE CITY AND KINDLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL

BY ORDERING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.

131/2025.

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23810

CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

HC-KAR

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

The appellants are the accused in Crime

No.310/2025 registered by the respondent-police station

for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352

read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. A complaint dated 28.11.2025 came to be filed

by respondent No.2/de-facto complainant alleging that

after her divorce in the first marriage, she contacted

second marriage with accused No.1/appellant No.1 herein

on 28.07.2025. She had uploaded her profile including

name of her caste as Valmiki community. After the

marriage, accused No.1 abused her. Accused

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23810

CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

HC-KAR

No.1 was suffering from psychological issues. Accused

No.2, the mother of accused No.1 and other accused have

abused her alleging that person like her from the SC/ST

community should not live with the people of their

community, thereby they humiliated her. Accordingly

complaint was registered for the offences noted above.

3. Appellants have filed an application seeking grant

of anticipatory bail which has been rejected by the trial

Court on 07.02.2026. Being aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

submits that no prima facie case is made against the

appellants. Admittedly, there is a marriage solemnised

with the consent and concurrence of the parties. The

domestic dispute, if any, cannot be converted and

prosecuted under the Special Enactment, terming it to be

an offence under Section 3(1)(r)&(s), which the trial Court

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23810

CRL.A No. 351 of 2026

HC-KAR

has not appreciated and hence, seeks for allowing of the

appeal and grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/

de-facto complainant referring to the statement of

objections filed, submits that there are enough and more

documentary evidence indicating physical and mental

harassment caused by the appellants. It is alleged that the

appellants are habitual offenders and accused No.1 had

earlier married to one Rachana and had ill-treated the said

person. As such, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document