ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Narik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused in FIR No.118 of 2026 on the file of Elanthakunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ SC Act’).

3. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.

4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community. It is alleged that about three years prior to the present incident, he pledged a gold ornament belonging to his wife with the father of the petitioner and borrowed money. According to the complainant, despite having subsequently repaid amounts towards the principal and accrued interest, the pledged gold ornament was not returned to him.

4.2. It is further alleged that on 06.06.2026 at about 11:30 a.m., the de facto complainant visited the house of the petitioner's father and demanded return of the pledged ornament. At that juncture, the petitioner allegedly abused the complainant in filthy language by intentionally referring to his caste name and thereafter pushed him out through the gate of the house. On the basis of a complaint lodged on 11.06.2026, the present crime came to be registered.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations are wholly false, motivated, and have been levelled with an oblique intention to exert pressure upon the petitioner in relation to a monetary dispute arising out of the pledge transaction. It is contended that there is an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the complaint, which casts doubt upon the genuineness of the allegations and lends support to the petitioner's contention that the complaint is an afterthought. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties essentially emanates from a private financial transaction concerning recovery of a pledged gold ornament and that the criminal proceedings have been instituted to give a colour of criminality to what is substantially a civil dispute.

5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even assuming the allegations in the complaint to be true, the incident is alleged to have occurred within the precincts of the petitioner's residence. It is therefore argued that one of the essential ingredients constituting offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, namely, that the intentional insult or intimidation should occur "in any place within public view", is conspicuously absent.

5.3. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand , (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein it was held that an insult or abuse occurring within the four walls of a building in the absence of members of the public would not satisfy the requirement of being within "public view". Reliance is also placed upon Kurup Dayal v. State and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that the statutory bar engrafted under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act would not apply where the allegations in the complaint fail to disclose a prima facie offence under the provisions of the Act.

5.4. Learned counsel additionally submits that the dispute pertains to a loan transaction supported by documentary evidence and does not necessitate custodial interrogation. It is stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the locality, has no criminal antece