Annasahebgouda @ Sharanappagouda vs The State
2026 Latest Caselaw 106 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Annasahebgouda @ Sharanappagouda vs The State on 8 January, 2026

                                         -1-
                                                     NC: 2026:KHC-K:111
                                               CRL.A No. 200329 of 2025


             HC-KAR




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                KALABURAGI BENCH

                      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                      BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200329 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A)
             BETWEEN:
             1.    ANNASAHEBGOUDA @ SHARANAPPAGOUDA
                   S/O. SOMAPPAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
                   AGE 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O HALAGADLA VILLAGE
                   TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI.
             2.    HANAMANT @ HANAMANTHRAYA
                   S/O. SHARANAPPA HOOGAR,
                   AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
                   R/O. HALAGADLA VILLAGE,
                   TQ. JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI.
                                                          ...APPELLANTS
             (BY SMT. SARITA S.R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by    AND:
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI        1.    THE STATE THROUGH
                   JEWARGI POLICE STATION
Location:          DIST. KALABURAGI.
HIGH COURT
OF                 (REPRESENTING BY LEARNED
KARNATAKA          ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   AT KALABURAGI - 585 107)
             2.    MALAPPA S/O. DYAVAPPA PUJARI,
                   AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER
                   R/O. HALAGADLA, TQ JEWARGI
                   DIST. KALABURAGI-585 103.
                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
             (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
                 SRI SUJATHA R., ADV. FOR R2)
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-K:111
                                  CRL.A No. 200329 of 2025


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A (2) OF SC/ST (PA)
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 04.11.2025 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1720/2025 AND
ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT/POLICE TO
RELEASE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CRIME NO.276/2025 OF JEWARGI POLICE
STATION, DIST. KALABURAGI PENDING ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE KALABURAGI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 352, 351(2) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF
BNS 2023 AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST P.A ACT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, 'the SC/ST (POA) Act'] for

grant of bail in Crime No.276/2025 registered by the

Jewargi Police for the offences punishable under Sections

352, 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 [for short, 'the BNS, 2023'] and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of

the SC/ST (POA) Act, presently pending on the file of the

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:111

HC-KAR

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on

15.10.2025 at about 3.40 p.m., when the complainant was

sitting at Hanuman Temple Katta in Halagadla Village due

to rain, the accused/appellants came there and asked him

to come down from Katta and thereafter abused him in

filthy language by mentioning his caste and also abused

not to sit or stand in the temple because of his caste and

asked him to apologize for the same. Based on the said

incident, the complainant filed the complaint on

21.10.2025. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR

came to be registered in Crime No.276/2025 for the

aforesaid offences against the appellants. Ever since the

registration of FIR, the respondent-police are making

hectic attempt to arrest the appellants. Hence, on

apprehension of arrest, the appellants approached II Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, for grant of

anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.1720/2025 and the said

petition came to be rejected. Hence, this appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:111

HC-KAR

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State so also learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2.

4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned

counsel for the appellants primarily contended that a false

case has been foisted against the appellants due to

vengeance between the appellants and complainant, who

are neighbours of the same village. Accordingly, prays to

allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

submits that the incident was video-graphed by the public

who were in the temple. The said video recording clearly

revealed that the appellants abused the complainant with

filthy language by mentioning his caste. As such, she

prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned HGGP also opposed the appeal stating

that there are prima facie materials since the accused

have committed the offences under the Provisions of

NC: 2026:KHC-K:111

HC-KAR

Atrocities Act. Hence, the accused/appellants are not

entitled for anticipatory bail since there is a bar under

Section 18-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made by the learned counsel for respective

parties so also perused the complaint and other materials

available on record.

8. As could be gathered from records, according to

the complainant, the alleged incident occurred on

15.10.2025 at about 03.40 p.m., at Hanuman temple.

However, the complaint came to be registered after lapse

of 6 days i.e., on 21.10.2015. Based on the submission of

the learned HCGP and the learned counsel for respondent

No.2, this Court directed to place the video recording of

the alleged incident before this Court. On examination of

the video recording, the same does not disclose the use of

any foul, abusive or offensive language, particularly such

language has not attracted the ingredients of the offence

NC: 2026:KHC-K:111

HC-KAR

punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act.

9. No doubt, there is a bar under Section 18A of

the SC/ST (POA) Act for grant of anticipatory bail for the

offence punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST

(POA) Act. However, in the instant case, since this Court

has examined the video record of the incident and there is

no such foul language forthcoming in the video recording.

Hence, I am of the considered view that, there is lack of

prima facie material against the accused to attract the

provisions of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act

and the other offences mentioned in the FIR are bailable in

nature. Such being the position, without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, suffice to hold that the

appellants/accused is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

The observations made in this appeal shall not come in the

way of trial. Hence, the following;

ORDER

i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:111

HC-KAR

ii. The order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1720/2025 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is hereby set aside.

iii. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.276/2025 registered by Jewargi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, subject to the following conditions:

         a)      The   appellants           shall     execute         a
         personal         bond        for         a     sum          of

Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b) The appellants shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts their appearance for valid reasons;