Sri Kantharaju P vs Smt. Thejavathi V Narayan
2026 Latest Caselaw 2077 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kantharaju P vs Smt. Thejavathi V Narayan on 10 March, 2026

                            1
                                         Crl.A. No.2502 of 2025



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2502 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI KANTHARAJU P
S/O PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 122/568-9 SE,
NISARGA LAYOUT,
HARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 019.
                                              ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH M., ADV.)

AND:

1.     SMT. THEJAVATHI V. NARAYAN,
       D/O V. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
       PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 285,
       2ND MAIN ROAD,
       J.P. NAGAR MINI FOREST,
       J.P. NAGAR III PHASE,
       BENGALURU SOUTH,
       BENGALURU 560 078.

2.     SRI. SHASHI SHIVAYYA PATIL
       S/O SHIVAYYA MAHABALAYYA PATIL,
       AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
       LEGAL ADVISOR OF
                            2
                                       Crl.A. No.2502 of 2025



     NIRMAN SHELTERS BENGALURU PVT. LTD.,
     PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1,
     SHANTHINIKETAN,
     HEBBAL KEMPAPURA,
     NEAR COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT,
     H.A. FARM, BENGALURU NORTH,
     BENGALURU 560 024.

3.   SMT. SUSHMA MURTHY
     W/O M.R. THRIAMBAKA MURTHY,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 1235, 'SHREYAS',
     11TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
     NISARGA LAYOUT, BANNERUGHATTA,
     ANEKAL,
     BENGALURU - 560 083

4.   SRI. P.A. SOMAIAH
     S/O P.S. APPACHA,
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
     PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 24/265,
     PAVAMANA EXTENSION,
     NANDANAVANA LAYOUT,
     BANNERGHATTA POST, ANEKAL,
     BENGALURU - 560 083.

5.   SMT. RANNAKAVI V. KAMMAR,
     S/O VEERABHADRAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
     PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 4,
     1ST FLOOR,
     SHARAVATHI BLOCK, NISARGA LAYOUT,
     HARAPPANAHALLI 2,
     BANNERGHATTA P.O,
     ANEKAL,
     BENGALURU - 560 083.
                                3
                                             Crl.A. No.2502 of 2025



6.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY BENGALURU RURAL DCRE POLICE STATION.
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU 560 001.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAYARAJ D. S., ADV. FOR R1 TO R5,
 SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R6.)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
03.12.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.2285/2025 BY THE
HON'BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY AND CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN CR NO.9/2025 AND DISMISS THE CRL.MISC NO.
2285/2025 FILED U/S 482 OF BNSS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
TO 5 AS PER ANNEXURE-D.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT    ON   21.01.2026  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

                       CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order

passed Dated 3rd December, 2025 in Criminal Misc. No.2285 of

2025 by the II Additional District & Sessions judge and Special

Judge, Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru (for short "the trial

Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, on the basis of

the complaint filed by Sri Kantha Raju P, Bengaluru Rural Police

have registered case in Crime No.9 of 2025 against accused 1 to

5 for offence punishable under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Casts and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST (PoA) Act') and Sections 352,

115(2) read with section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The accused filed application Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Criminal Misc. No.2285 of 2025. The

same came to be allowed by the trial Court on 3rd December,

2025. Being aggrieved by this order, victim/applicant has

preferred this appeal.

3. Sri Veerabhadraiah M., learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant would submit that the impugned order passed by the

trial Court is arbitrary, capricious, illegal, and contrary to statute

as well as the law declared by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble

Apex Court and the same is contrary to Article 141 of

Constitution of India and without application of judicious mind.

It is further submitted that from a plain reading of the complaint,

it prima facie establishes the motive of respondents 1 to 5 and a

case against them to invoke the alleged offences punishable

under penal provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act. Further, the

appellant has clearly established the commission of offence at

public place and in public view. Therefore, the special court has

wrongly interpreted the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of RAHNA JALAL v. THE STATE OF KERALA reported in

(2021)1 SCC 733 and no reason is assigned whether the

complaint dated 16th October 2025 establishes the prima facie

case or not. He would submit that the circumstances in the case

of RAHNA JALAL are entirely different from the case on hand.

What is narrated at paragraphs 11 to 14 of that judgment cannot

be equated to the averments made in the complaint dated 16th

October, 2025 because the appellant had made specific

allegations against each and every accused and their act. But

the trial Court has totally ignored the specific allegations and

applied the general law and granted anticipatory bail, ignoring

the statutory bar as well as law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

4. It is further submitted that the special court totally ignored

the admission made by respondents 1 to 5. Because of their

own admission, it clearly establishes the antecedents of the

accused, more particularly respondents 1 to 5, for the reason

that in the earlier occasion when appellant visited his Apartment

on 8th July, 2025, for the incident narrated in the First

Information Report in Crime No.121 of 2025 for the offences

punishable under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act

and Sections 506, 323, 342, 504 and Section 34 of IPC against

the Managing Director of Nirman Shelters (B) Private Limited,

viz. Sri Lakshmi Narayan and its Legal Advisor, Sri Shashi Patil

and one Smt. Sushma Murthy, prima facie, the whole conduct of

respondents 1 to 5, including the Managing Director of the

company, clearly establishes their intention of snatching the

apartment of the appellant illegally. Throughout the impugned

order, the trial court did not take the factual aspects and

pending proceedings which establishes the antecedents of the

accused, which creates one of the bars to grant the anticipatory

bail. From the impugned order it is forthcoming that the special

Court has not applied its judicial mind and not appreciated the

statement of objection filed by the appellant including the

prosecution and dealt with the anticipatory bail in a casual

manner and granted bail contrary to the facts and law, and

hence the same is liable to be set aside. On all these grounds, it

is sought to allow the appeal. To substantiate his arguments, he

has relied on the following decisions:

1. JAGJIR SINGH v. RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER - (1979)1 SCC 560;

2. K.D. SHARMA v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS - (2008)12 SCC 481;

3. SANT LAL GUPTA & ANOTHER AND OTHERS v.

MODERN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS - (2010)13 SCC 336;

4. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJOR GENERAL SRI KANT SHARMA AND ANOTHER -

(2015)6 SCC 773; and

5. KIRAN v. RAJKUMAR JIVRAJ JAIN AND ANOTHER in SLP (CRL) NO.8169 OF 2024 DECIDED ON 01.09.2025.

5. As against this Sri Jaiaraj D.S., learned Counsel appearing

for respondents 1 to 5, would submit that the trial court has

passed the impugned order in accordance with law, facts and

circumstances of the case. Absolutely, there are no grounds to

interfere with the impugned order and accordingly sought for

dismissal of the appeal. To substantiate his arguments, he

placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARKHAND -

(2020)10 SCC 710;

2. RITESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2022 SCC ONLINE KAR.1676;

3. V. JAGADISH BATHIJA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2023 SCC ONLINE KAR.230;

4. SEVEN HILLS DEVELOPERS & TRADERS v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA 2025 SCC ONLINE KAR.4470;

5. PRUTHVIRAJ CHOUHAN v. STATE OF KERALA 2020 (4) SCC 727; AND

6. RAHNA JALAL V. STATE OF KERALA - 2021(1) SCC 733.

6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of

material is placed before the court, the following points would

arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the order impugned dated 03rd

December, 2025 passed in Criminal

Misc.No.2285 of 2025 by the Additional District

& Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore

Rural District, Bangalore, is perverse, arbitary,

capricious, illegal, and contrary to the statute as

well as the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court?

2. What order?

7. My answer to the above points are:

Point No.1: in the negative;

Point No.2: as per final order

Reasons to Point No.1:

8. I have examined the materials place before the court. On

the basis of the complaint filed by one Kantharaju P, Bangalore

Rural Police have registered a case against the accused i.e.

respondent 1 to 5 for the offence punishable intersections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and Sections 352, 115(2)

read with section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. The respondents have filed

bail application under Section 482 of BNS, 2023, seeking

anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.9 of

2025. After examining the materials placed before it, the trial

Court at paragraph 14 to 16 has observed as under:

"14. . If facts and circumstances of this case are considered in light of above principles of law, it is clear that no prima facie case is made out in the complaint averments against the present petitioners. It is because, though it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners humiliated the caste of respondent No.2 in public, the specific names of the members of public in whose presence, caste of respondent No.2 was humiliated are not disclosed in the complaint. In other words, it is not clear whether the caste of respondent No.2 was humiliated in public view. Furthermore, the alleged incident took place on 19.08.2025 while complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 on 07.11.2025. Thus, there is a delay of more than 2 months in lodging complaint, which is not properly explained at this stage. Moreover, it is clear from the court records that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is mainly civil in nature. Thus, though there is a statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners have successfully overcome such statutory bar and as such, this court has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, there is no legal hurdle or bar for grant of anticipatory bail under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in favour of petitioners.

15. This court has followed the Article 141 of Constitution by properly applying the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the decisions in in 2015(6) SCC 773, (1991) 1 SCC 560 and (2010) 13 SCC 336 are not helpful to the respondent No.2. Moreover, this court has exercised its jurisdiction under 482 BNS and has not granted relief to the petitioners in exercise of Section 528 BNS. Therefore, arguments / contentions raised by counsel for respondent No.2 cannot be accepted.

16. Further, the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The investigation is substantially over. The arrest and detention of the petitioners are not required in facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners are permanent residents of addresses mentioned in cause title of the bail petition and as such, there is no chance of petitioners fleeing the justice. Apprehension of prosecution or respondent No.2 can be addressed by imposing suitable conditions on the petitioners while releasing them on anticipatory bail. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of petitioners in this case. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative."

9. On re-examination/reconsideration and re-appreciation of

the materials placed on record, I do not find any legal or factual

error in the impugned order passed by the special court.

Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.

10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

lnn