[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Uppar Honnurappa S/O Dodda ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4417
CRL.A No. 100033 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100033 OF 2026 (U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST
ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. UPPAR HONNURAPPA
S/O DODDA GOVINDAPPA,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
2. SRI. UPPAR VENKATESH
S/O. UPPAR HONNURAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
3. SMT. THIMAKKA
W/O. UPPAR HONNURAPPA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER,
ALL ARE R/O. PUJARHALLI VILLAGE,
TAL. KUDLIGI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 135.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
...APPELLANTS
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
(BY SRI. SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
2. SRI. OBALESH S/O. MALLAPPA HARIJAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
3. NAGARATAN W/O. OBLESH HARIJAN,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE (VICTIM)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4417
CRL.A No. 100033 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. KAMALAMMA W/O. MALLAPPA HARIJAN,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE (VICTIM),
ALL ARE R/O. PUJARHALLI, TQ. KULDALGI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEKH MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
R4-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24/1/2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, HOSAPETE IN CRL.
MISC. PETITION NO. 5741/2025 AND GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 1, 2 AND 3 IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO. 291/2025, DT. 21/12/2025 REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w),
3(2)(v-a) and 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SECTION 109,
115(2), 118(1), 133, 74, 318, 318(4) AND 309(4) OF BNS, BY THE
HOSAHALLI POLICE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4417
CRL.A No. 100033 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sanjay Chanal appearing for
the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, learned HCGP Sri. Abhishekh
Malipatil appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.
Vinayak S. Kulkarni for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 19891, seeking to enlarge the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3
on anticipatory bail with the following prayer:
"Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed before this
Hon'ble Court to set aside the order dated 24/1/2026
passed by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Vijayanagara District, Hosapete in Crl. Misc. Petition
No.5741/2025 and grant anticipatory bail to the
appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3 in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.291/2025, Dt: 21/12/2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
and Section 109, 115(2), 118(1), 133, 74, 318, 318(4) &
309(4) of BNS, by the Hosahalli Police, in the ends of
justice."
Hereinafter referred to as the 'SC and ST Act'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4417
HC-KAR
3. It is the brief case of the prosecution that the
complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that when the
complainant and his wife went to the house of the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 to ask about their land, which was
allegedly sold fraudulently by the father of the complainant in
favour of the appellants, the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 have
assaulted the complainant, snatched the mangalya chain of the
complainant's wife, tore her saree and blouse, scratched her
neck and outraged her modesty. It is further alleged that the
appellants/accused have abused the complainant and his wife by
referring to their caste, assaulted the complainant and outraged
the modesty of his wife. Accordingly, a case was registered for
the offence stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3
submitted that the averments made in the complaint are false
one and that the incident did not occur within the public view.
Therefore, the offences alleged under the SC and ST Act is not
attracted. Hence, prays to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to
the appellants.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4417
HC-KAR
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP for respondent No.1
and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that
as per Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST Act, grant of
anticipatory bail is barred. Therefore, prays to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Upon considering the averments in the complaint at this
stage, it is prima facie revealed that the complainant belongs to
a Scheduled Caste. It is the grievance of the complainant that
the accused persons have fraudulently obtained a sale deed in
respect of the land from the complainant's father, who has
executed the sale in favour of the appellants. When the same
was questioned by the complainant and his wife, being aggrieved
by it, the appellants have assaulted the complainant and his
wife. There are also allegations in the complaint that the accused
have snatched the mangalya chain of the complainant's wife,
tore her saree and blouse, scratched her neck and outraged her
modesty. A prima facie case is made out to face trial.
7. As per Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST Act,
there is a bar in granting anticipatory bail. If no prima facie case
is made out and the offences under the provisions of the SC and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4417
HC-KAR
ST Act are not attracted, then the application for anticipatory bail
could be considered. However, in the present case, the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 were aware that the complainant
belongs to a Scheduled Caste and with common intention, they
have assaulted the complainant and his wife and obtained the
land. The investigation is still going and the charge sheet is yet
to be filed. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PMP
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 21
