Sabanna vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 29.06.2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.336/2026 before the jurisdictional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bagalkote.

Complaint is filed in Crime No.44/2026 for the offences under Sections 74, 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Act of 1989’).

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prior to the filing of the charge sheet, the appellant had filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.10194/2026 and said appeal was dismissed on the ground that Section 18 of the Act of 1989 would apply to the facts of the case, as such, the appeal seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

However, learned counsel for appellant would submit that after the charge sheet is filed, one more application is filed before the Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail and said application is rejected in terms of the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that notwithstanding the dismissal of the first appeal on the ground that the provisions of Act of 1989 are attracted, this second appeal is maintainable as the appellant is in a position to establish that the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not attracted in view of the materials attached along with the charge sheet.

In addition, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offences alleged attracts maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant.

Since the charge sheet is already filed, custodial interrogation is not required and the appellant be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

It is the further submission that appellant will co-operate for the fair trial.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State as well as respondent No.2 jointly would oppose the appeal on the ground that the anticipatory bail appeal is not maintainable as this Court has already taken a view in Criminal Appeal No. 100194/2026 filed by the present appellant that the provisions of Act of 1989 are attracted. Thus, it is the contention that the same view is applicable to the present case as also.

In addition, it is also urged that even in the charge sheet, there are materials to take a view that the provisions of the Act of 1989 are attracted.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

In terms of the order dated 12.06.2026, in Criminal Appeal No.100194/2026, this Court had dismissed the appeal and the order reads as under:

Admittedly, the appellant filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and same is rejected after filing of the charge sheet.

Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that in the charge sheet there is no allegation by the complainant relating to the offences under the Act of 1989. Learned counsel would refer to the statement recorded by the Magistrate.

The Court has perused the statement dated 11.03.2026 by the complainant before the Magistrate. It is relevant to notice that the statement is on oath. In the said statement she has stated that she owed Rs.2,000/- to the appellant and he was repeatedly demanding the said amount. When the complainant could not pay the amount and assured to make the payment after receipt of salary, accused used to abuse her.

Complainant has also stated in the said statement that, once he had come to complainant’s house, pulled her and has used abusive words against her. It is also stated in the complaint that, a day earlier to the statement recorded before the Court between 10.30 p.m. to 01.00 p.m. the accused had made phone call and asked the complainant to come to his place.

After having gone through the entire statement recorded before the Magistrate there is absolutely no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there is no allegation against the complainant with reference to the caste.

The Court has also noticed the statement of the witnesses. One of the witnesses who appears to be the neighbour of the complainant allegedly has seen the appellant making reference to the complainant’s caste. Said statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is part of the charge sheet.

Now the Court has to consider the complainant’s version on oath and the prosecution's version that is the statement under Section 161 of one of the neighbours.

At this juncture after going through the statement under Section 161 of the alleged eye-witness, the Court is of the view that the said statement is vague. If it is read in the context of the statement made by the complainant before the magistrate, the Court is of the view that Section 18 of the Act of 1989, prima facie does not apply to the facts of the case. The statement of the witness under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has to be tested during the course of trial, if it is established that such a statement is made with reference to the caste, then the Court can proceed further for the offences under the Act of 1989.

Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail.

Hence the following:

Appeal is allowed subject to following conditions:

Appellant shall appear before the

jurisdictional police within 15 days from today and shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.44/2026 registered before Bilagi Police Station, Bagalkot .

The observations made in this order are not reflections on the merits of the matter.

The observations are only confined on the merits of the bail petition.