Karnataka High Court
Suvarna K.H vs The State By Rural Police Station on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40207
CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1702 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
1. SUVARNA K.H.
W/O HALAPPA K.,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
MOBILE NO.73533901131
R/O NO. 611, PANCHAYATH ROAD,
ARISHINAGERE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - PIN 577214
2. MADHU K.H.
S/O K. HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
MOBILE 9380924828
R/O GOBBARADA HONDA BEEDI,
ARISHINAGERE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - PIN 577214
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. KARIBASAPPA
S/O NAGARAJAPPA
MOBILE 9964812884
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O GOWDARA BEEDI,
ARISHIANGERE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - PIN 577214
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A.H.RAKESH., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40207
CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE BY RURAL POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. SMT. DEEPIKA
W/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O MACHENALLI VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
PIN: 577201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP. FOR R1,
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF 2nd ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA REJECTING THE BAIL
APPLICATION IN CRL.MISC.NO.687/2025 ON 04.08.2025 FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 352,74,115(2),118(1),351(2) R/W 3(5) OF
BNS AND SEC.3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(1)(w)(i),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT AND GRANT OR ENLARGE ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN
CR.NO.207/2025 REGISTERED AT FIR DATED 16.07.2025 WITH
RESPONDENT NO.1 SHIVAMOGGA RURAL POLICE STATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40207
CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 4th August, 2025 passed in Criminal Misc. No.687 of 2025 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Shivamogga (for short "the trial Court"), whereby the application filed by the apples seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.207 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 352, 74, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants have filed petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.207 of 2025 filed by Rural Police Station, Shivamogga.
4. Sri A.H. Rakesh, learned Counsel for appellants submits that there are no prima facie case to attract the alleged commission of offence by the accused under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. He would submit that the dispute is only -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40207 CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025 HC-KAR in respect of property in Sy.No.1/18 measuring 0.03 guntas situate at Machenahalli, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk. The complainant has suppressed this fact. The alleged incident took place on 10th July 2025, and the complaint came to be filed after a lapse of six days. The complainant has not properly explained as to the inordinate delay caused in filing the complaint. Perusal of first information report makes it clear that the complainant has not mentioned the name of neighbours who have witnessed the incident. Therefore, provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable to the case on hand at this stage. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
5. As against this, Sri M.V. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would submit that there are prima facie materials to attract the alleged commission of offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of appeal.
6. I have examined the materials placed before me. In the First Information Report, it is alleged that the first informant is a member of Korama caste. The first informant, her husband and her sister-in-law were doing kheni work for the past four -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40207 CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025 HC-KAR years in the garden of accused No.1 and by selling arecanut, they used to give amount to the accused No.1 and the accused No.1 used to give profit out of sale consideration to them. During the year 2023, under the guise that there was less yield and she suffered loss to the tune of Rs.15,34,000/-, the accused No.1 harassed, the first informant and her husband and insisted them to make good the said loss. It is alleged that on 2nd July, 2024, accused No.1 came to the house of first informant and got executed sale agreement in respect of house in the site standing in the name of husband of first informant into her name and also obtained cheque from her sister-in-law, agreeing to cancel the same on payment of amount. Thereafter, the accused No.1 used to come to the house of first informant and was harassing them demanding payment of money. It is alleged that the husband of first informant had paid Rs.15,00,000/- in intervals to the first accused and her husband. In spite of receiving the amount, accused went on postponing to cancel the sale agreement and to return the cheque. It is further alleged that on 10th July, 2025 at around 4:30 pm, accused No.1 came to the house of the first informant and removed the shed beside her house which was constructed -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40207 CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025 HC-KAR by the first informant and started to put fence. When the same was questioned by the first informant, the accused No.1 dragged her by holding her tuft and assaulted on her back. Meanwhile, accused No.2, being the son of the accused No.1 came and twisted her hand at that time, Manjunatha and Sunila came to extricate the first informant, they accused abused them in filthy language, taking their caste name "...ªÀiÁ¢UÀ eÁwAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄPÀ̼À dUÀ¼À ©r¸À®Ä §AzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV..." and criminally intimidated them by exhibiting chopper, knife and long. It is alleged that about 5 to 6 unknown persons came with accused No.2 in a goods vehicle, attacked the first informant, her husband, and her sister-in-law and neighbours, viz. Omkara and Manjula by wooden clubs and abused them in filthy language taking the caste name. Thus, the accused have committed alleged offence.
7. The alleged incident took place on 10th July, 2025 and complaint came to be filed on 16th July, 2025 at about 1.00 pm. At this stage, there is no proper explanation by the prosecution as to the abnormal delay of seven days in filing the complaint. The First Information Report itself reveals that there is a -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40207 CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025 HC-KAR dispute between the accused and the complainant with regard to sale agreement in respect of the land in Sy.No.1/18 of Machenahalli. The certified copy of the sale agreement dated 31st May, 2024 is produced. The appellants have also produced copy of the order pertaining to OS No.607 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga which is filed by one Suvarna K.H. against the complainant and three others. Copy of the Interlocutory Application is also produced. Ex-parte temporary injection is also granted by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga on 24th July, 2025. Since there is an unexplained delay of seven days in filing the complaint, at this stage, solely on the basis of First Information Report, it cannot be said that there are prima facie material to attract the commission of offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The other alleged offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are bailable offences. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, previous incidents of the applicant and also the pending property dispute between the complainant and the accused, I am of the opinion that it is just proper to allow the appeal. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:40207 CRL.A No. 1702 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 4th August, 2025 passed in Criminal Misc. No.687 of 2025 by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Shivamogga, is set aside;
iii) Consequently, the bail Application preferred under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 by the appellants is allowed;
iv) Appellants shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.207 of 2025, filed by Rural Police Station, Shivamogga, upon executing self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer;
v) Appellants shall assist the investigating officer for investigation;
vi) Appellants shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
vii) Appellants shall not involve themselves in any other similar offence.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93