THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 (FILED U/S.482 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.113/2026 BY RAJAGOPALNAGAR POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 351(2),352 OF BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST(POA).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is father-in-law of defacto complainant/respondent No.2, is before this Court seeking his release in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0113/2026 registered before the respondent No.1/police pending on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. A complaint dated 28.03.2026 came to be lodged by respondent No.2, the defacto complainant, alleging that he had married to the daughter of petitioner and that he is residing with his wife in a house situated opposite to that of his father-in-law the petitioner herein. It is further alleged that there has been matrimonial discord between him and his wife for the past six months, primarily on account of her continuous phone chats with outsider which frequently led to quarrels between them. It is stated that such disputes culminated in an incident dated 16.03.2026 at about 9.30 p.m., wherein the petitioner is alleged to have abused respondent No.2 by referring to his caste, thereby humiliating him. The complainant asserts that the said incident was recorded on video and that he is prepared to produce the same as and when required. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.0113/2026 has been registered by respondent No.1–Police for the offences alleged therein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no prima facie case is made out so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent No.1–Police in connection with the aforesaid crime. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that the alleged incident has taken place on a public road and, therefore, the requirement of the occurrence being in a place “within public view” stands satisfied. He, however, fairly submits that the complaint does not mention the names of any independent persons who witnessed the incident, though it is stated that the occurrence has been videographed and the same can be produced before the Court. He also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, reported in (2025) SCC Online 186 referring to paragraphs 7.2 and 8, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the expression “any place within public view” occurring under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Referring to the said paragraphs, he contends that since the alleged incident occurred on a public road, it squarely falls within the ambit and mischief of the Act. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of the petition.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State opposing the petition submits that there is bar under Section 18 of the Act for grant of the bail. Therefore, she seeks for rejection of the petition.

6. Heard. Perused the records.

7. The allegation made in the complaint reads as under:

"F ೇನ ಾಾಂಶೆೆಂದೆ ¦ಾದುಾರಾದ ೕ ೆಂಕೇ ಗಂಗಣ, 31 ವಷ ರವರು ಾ ೆ!ೆ "ಾಜಾ$ %ೕ&ದ ದೂೆೆಂದೆ ಾನು (ೕಲ*ಂಡ ,-ಾಸದ/0,. ಹು23%ಂದಲೂ ನನ4 ತಂೆ-6ಾ7ಯ 9ೊ6ೆಯ/0 ಾಸಾ$ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. ಾನು ೕವನಾ*$ ;ೕಟನ/0 =ೆಲವ> ?ಾ@ ಆ$ ೆಲಸವನು4 Bಾ&ೊಂ&ರು6ೆ:ೕೆ. ನಮD ತಂೆ-6ಾ7ಯವ>!ೆ ಇಬGರು ಮಕ*HದುI