[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nanjunda K J vs State Of By Dcre Police Station on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2511 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. NANJUNDA K. J.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O JAGADISH K.N.
AIRTEL TOWER ROAD,
NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 213.
2. JAGADISH K.N.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O NANJUNDAPPA K.S.
Digitally signed AIRTEL TOWER ROAD,
by
SHARADAVANI NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
B TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
Location: High
Court of CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
Karnataka DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577213.
3. HARISHA K.J.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O JAGADISH K.N.
AIRTEL TOWER ROAD,
NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025
HC-KAR
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577 213.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. KOKILA H.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF BY DCRE POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01.
2. MAMATHA S.
D/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OPP. MADAVA NILAYA, KASHIPURA,
VINOBANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA,
PIN-577204
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, 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 DTD 08.12.2025 PASSED
IN CRL.MISC.NO.1201/2025 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS
ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.3/2025 REGISTERED BY DCRE P.S., SHIVAMOGGA, FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF
BNS, U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 2015, PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
CRL.A No. 2511 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal against the
order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1201/2025
by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Shivamogga (for short 'trial Court').
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on the
basis of the complaint filed by the complainant,
Shivamogga DCRE Police have registered the case in
Crime No.3/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for
commission of offence under Sections 69, 115(2), 352,
351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s),
3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015 and submitted F.I.R. to the Court. The appellants
have filed application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023
before the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1201/2025 and the
same came to be dismissed on 08.12.2025. Being
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
aggrieved by the impugned order passed, the appellants
have preferred this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the trial Court has erred in mechanically
applying the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act
without considering the well settled legal position that the
said bar is not absolute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India"
reported in 2020 (4) SCC 727, has clearly held that if the
complaint does not make out a prima facie case for
applicability of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, the bar
created by Section 18 shall not apply. The allegations
under SC/ST (POA) Act are clearly an afterthought and
fabricated, introduced solely with an intention to harass
the appellants and to invoke the stringent provisions
preventing anticipatory bail. Hence, the bar under Section
18 of SC/ST (POA) Act does not operate in the present
case. The entire case is based on a consensual relationship
between appellant No.1 and respondent No.2, which did
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
not culminate in marriage. From the complaint itself, it is
crystal clear that respondent No.2 voluntarily accompanied
appellant No.1 on multiple occasions over a period of 5
months from May, 2025 to September, 2025 to a hotel
and maintained physical relations. The relationship was
consensual, and the allegations of forcible sexual
intercourse are a patent afterthought made only after the
marriage proposal was declined by the family of appellant
No.1. Non-filing of the case immediately after the alleged
incident in May, 2025 and not lodging complaint for more
than 5 months despite the alleged incidents, clearly
demonstrate consent and willing on the part of respondent
No.2. Hence the complaint filed under Section 69 of BNS is
not maintainable either in law or in facts. Further it is
submitted that the allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act
appears to be fabricated and are an abuse of protective
legislation enacted for the welfare of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe communities. If appellant No.1 was aware
of respondent No.2's caste from the beginning of their
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
relationship during their B.Ed.course, there was no reason
whatsoever why he would have continued the relationship
for such an extended period or introduced her to his family
members including appellant Nos.2 and 3 and allowed
discussions regarding marriage to proceed, till 08.11.2025.
The alleged caste-based abuse on 08.11.2025 is
conveniently timed after the relationship soured and the
marriage proposal was declined and appears to be a
desperate attempt to invoke the stringent provisions of the
SC/ST (POA) Act to prevent the grant of bail and to harass
the appellants. Hence, allegations under SC/ST (POA) Act
are liable to be rejected. The delay of 5 days in lodging the
complaint is fatal to the case of the prosecution and
indicates deliberation, consultation and fabrication of
allegations particularly the caste based allegation under
the SC/ST (POA) Act. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On all
these grounds, he sought to allow this appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
4. As against this, the learned HCGP Sri.M.Diwakar
Maddur, would submit that the trial Court has properly
appreciated the materials on record and rightly rejected
the application filed under Section 482 of BNSS and
sought for dismissal of this appeal.
5. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant, Shivamogga DCRE Police have registered the
case in Crime No.3/2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for
the commission of offences under Sections 69, 115(2),
352, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s),
3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015. The date of incident shown in the FIR is
commencing from 08.05.2025 till 08.11.2025. The
complaint came to be filed on 13.11.2025. There is an
inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Though the FIR is
submitted on 13.11.2025, even after the lapse of 60 days
from the date of receiving the FIR, the Investigating
Officer has not submitted charge sheet against the
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
accused as required under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 7 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the SC/ST (POA) Rules,
1995'). Even the Investigating Officer has not explained in
writing about to the delay in filing charge sheet in
accordance with Sub-Rule 2(A) of Rule 7 of the SC/ST
(POA) Rules, 1995. Till this date, even the Police have not
placed any material before this Court about taking steps
for arrest of the accused. The alleged commission of
offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. Taking into consideration the abnormal delay in filing
the complaint and nature and gravity of offence and
previous antecedents of the appellants, not taking any
steps by the Investigating Officer as to the arrest of the
accused even after lapse of more than 2 months from the
date of registration of F.I.R. and non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions of Sub-Rule 2 and 2(A) of Rule 7 of
the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995, I am of the opinion that it is
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
just and proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated
08.12.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1201/2025 by
the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Shivamogga is set aside. Consequently,
application filed under Section 482 of BNNS,
2023 is allowed.
iii. The appellants shall be released on
bail on executing a self bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
each with one surety each for likesum to the
satisfaction of the Investigation Officer, in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.3/2025 of
Shivamogga DCRE Police.
iv. The appellants shall assist the
Investigating Officer for investigation.
v. The appellants shall not tamper or
threaten the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2972
HC-KAR
vi. Registry is directed to send the copy
of this judgment to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
GPG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
