Mallappa @ Mallanna vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/ accused under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act’] praying for an order to set aside the order dated 04.07.2026 of the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur [for short ‘the trial Court/ learned Special Judge’], in Crl.Misc. No.269/2026 and thereby to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant directing the respondent No.1 Police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.187/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC/SC (PoA) Act, pending before the said Court.

The prosecution was set into motion against the appellant on the complaint of respondent No.2.

The case alleged against the appellant is that on 29.04.2026 at about 5.00 p.m., the goats tied in front of the house of respondent No.2 were missed and while searching for those goats, the respondent No.2 found those goats tied in front of the house of appellant. Hence, she questioned the appellant as to why he tied those goats near his house. At that time, the appellant became angry and abused the respondent No.2 in filthy language referring to her caste name. The appellant also assaulted the respondent No.2 and pulled her hair and attempted to outrage her modesty. When the respondent No.2 fell on the ground in the alleged incident, the appellant kicked her and hit on her stomach with fist and thereby he committed the alleged offence.

The appellant has filed petition before the learned Special judge in Crl.Misc. No.269/2026 seeking for anticipatory bail. But the learned Special Judge as per the order dated 04.07.2026 has dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.

The respondent No.1 has appeared through the learned HCGP. The learned HCGP has not filed any objections to this appeal. However, she has orally objected to the bail submitting that there is prima facie case against the appellant for the offence punishable under provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act. As per Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act, there is bar for granting anticipatory bail and therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the petition. The investigation is at the initial stage and if the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, there is chance of him tampering with prosecution witnesses and thereby hampering further investigation of the case. Therefore, the learned HCGP has sought for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned HCGP for the respondent No.1. Perused the relevant materials on record. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Court is:

Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned order and thereby grant him anticipatory bail in his favour as sought for?

The fact that the respondent No.2 is belonging to Scheduled Caste and the appellant belongs to upper caste is not in dispute. As per the complaint averments, it would be clear that the dispute between the respondent No.2 and the appellant is regarding tying of goats belonging to the respondent No.2 by the appellant in front of his house. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, if the complaint averments are taken into consideration, it would be prima facie clear that the appellant had no intention to insult or humiliate the respondent No.2 calling by her caste name.

As submitted by the learned HCGP, it is true that the relevant portion in the complaint would read thus,

But there is no specific mention in the complaint as to when the appellant put the waste into the well of the people belonging caste of respondent No.2. Hence, the above portion of complaint would show there is only bald allegation made against the appellant.

There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the respondent Police to show that any of the people belonging to the caste of respondent No.2 gave any complaint against the appellant alleging that he used to put waste into drinking water well belonging to the people of the caste of respondent No.2. Therefore, on meticulous consideration of the averments made in the complaint, it would be clear that there is no prima facie case made against the appellant for the offences punishable under the provision of SC/ST (PoA) Act, at this stage.

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases. He has also relied on the order dated 21.11.2023 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A. No.2039/2023, wherein in similar case for the offences punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and other offences under the IPC, this Court has granted anticipatory bail in favour of the concerned accused persons relying on the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Hitesh varma v/s State of Uttarakand reported in (2020) 4 SCC 710. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be clear that the bar under Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act does come in the way in the case on hand to grant anticipatory bail in favour of appellant, as there is no prima facie case at this stage against the appellant of any of the offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Further, the other offences alleged against the appellant are punishable under Sections 115(2), 74, 352, 351(2) of BNS. Those offences and also the offences alleged against the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Moreover, even though the alleged offences are triable by the learned Special Judge, the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for life.

Moreover, the appellant is permanent resident of Karigudda Village, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District, within the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Special Judge. There is no antecedent of the appellant forthcoming from the respondent No.1 Police to show that he committed similar offences or any offence earlier. There is no serious ground made out by the respondent No.1 Police to deny benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

Any of the apprehensions of the learned HCGP can be suitably met with by imposing proper and necessary conditions on the appellant making him to assist the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case. Hence, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail as sought for. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has committed error in dismissing the bail petition filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail under the impugned order and thereby denying benefit of anticipatory bail to him. Consequently, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

In the result, answering the above point in the affirmative, I proceed to pass the following:

However, this order shall not come in the way of Investigating Officer taking custody of appellant with prior permission of the learned Special Judge, if the custodial interrogation of appellant is necessary in the investigation of the case.