Karnataka High Court
H S Manohar @ Manohargowda vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43108
CRL.A No. 2066 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2066 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
H S MANOHAR @ MANOHARGOWDA,
S/O J SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT 330, 4TH MAIN,
HOOTAGALLI, BELAVADI POST,
MYSURU - 570 018.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G A SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY VIJAYANAGARA P S,
MYSURU,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING,
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. PURUSHOTHAM,
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE D V VENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.2127, 2ND CROSS,
ASHOKAPURAM,
MYSURU - 570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANGASWSAMY R. HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.M. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, ABSENT)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43108
CRL.A No. 2066 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
27.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL DISTRICT AND
SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.1378/2025
(CRIME NO.136/2025) REGISTERED WITH THE VIJAYNAGARA
POLICE STATION, MYSURU (ANNEXURE E) FOR THE OFFENCE
P/US/ 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(va) AND 3(1)(u) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT 1989 AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THE ARREST BY THE
RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.136/2025 DATED 29.08.2025;
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order
dated 27th September 2025, passed in Criminal Misc. No.1378
of 2025 by the VI District & Special Judge, Mysuru (for short
"the trial Court").
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the
basis of complaint filed by one Purushottam, Vijayanagar
Police, Mysuru registered case in crime No.136 of 2025 against
the accused for the offence punishable sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015. Appellant filed Application section 482 of BNSS-2023,
NC: 2025:KHC:43108
HC-KAR
seeking anticipatory bail. Same came to be rejected by the
trial Court by impugned order. Hence appellant has preferred
this appeal.
3. Sri G.A. Shrikantegowda, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant would submit that the alleged
Instagram post does not refer to any caste and also of this
complainant. However, the concerned police have registered
false case against this accused. The complaint came to be
registered on 29th August 2025. Even after lapse of 60 days,
the investigating officer has not submitted final report in the
case. Absolutely there are no materials to attract the alleged
commission of offence. On all these grounds, he sought to
allow the appeal.
4. As against this, Sri R. Rangaswamy, 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. In view of section 18 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, the accused is not entitled for anticipatory
bail. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:43108
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the arguments on both sides, I have
perused the Instagram Post of "Manohargowda1819". The same
reads as under
"1. ©nÖ ¨sÁUÀåzÀ zÀjzÀæ ¸ÀAvÀwAiÀÄ ¨sÉÆøÀÄrPÉ zÀÄrzÀÄ §zÀÄPÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÉÃ
ªÀÄUÀ£É,
2. ¯ÉÆà vÀÄPÁj mÉÆÃPÀ£ï VgÁQ ¨ÉÆýªÀÄUÀ£É GwÛ ©wÛ ºÁ®Ä PÀgÉzÀÄ
qÉÊjUÉ ºÁQzÀgÉ ¸ÀºÀPÁj DUÀÄwÛÃj ªÀÄÄAqÉêÀÄUÀ£É §jà ©nÖ ºÀt¢AzÀ
§zÀÄPÉÆÃzÀ®è PÀuÉÆà ¯Éà ¸ÁlªÉÃ.
3. xÀÆ ¤ªÀÄäAvÀºÀ zÀjzÀæzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÄÀ ä ¥ÀÆ«ðPÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀ EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ
JAzÀÄ FUÀ CxÀð DUÀÄwÛzÉ. D¬ÄPÉÆAqÀÄ w£ÀÄßwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄÄAqÉà ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ
£ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ºÀwÛgÀ ¨ÉÃr wAzÀÄ §zÀÄQzÀ ¨ÉêÀ¹ð ¤Ã£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå
±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄPÉÌ PÉlÖzÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ GzÉÝñÀ ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
6. Perusal of the Instagram Post of the accused,
reveals that accused has not referred the name of the
complainant. There is no abuse to claim that the said post was
directed obliviously against the complainant. Even in the
Instagram post, there is no reference as to the abuse of this
complainant. Therefore, at this stage, there are no prima-facie
materials to attract the commission of offence as alleged in the
NC: 2025:KHC:43108
HC-KAR
First Information Report. Hence, there is no bar to grant
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 27th September 2025, passed in
Criminal Misc. No.1378 of 2025 by the VI
District & Special Judge, Mysuru dated 27
September 2025, is set aside. Consequently,
Application filed under section 482 of BNSS-
2023 is allowed;
iii) Accused/appellant shall be released on bail
upon execution of self-bond for Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the investigating officer, in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.136 of 2025 of
Vijayanagara Police Station, Mysuru;
iv) Appellant shall not tamper or threaten the
prosecution witnesses in any manner;
v) Appellant shall assist the investigating officer in
investigation;
NC: 2025:KHC:43108
HC-KAR
vi) Appellant shall not indulge in similar offences.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
