Sharath @ Mukkali Sharath Kumar & Ors. vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayanagara District, Hosapete (for short ‘Trial Court’), in Criminal Miscellaneous No.336/2026, arising out of Crime No.71/2026 and the subsequent Sessions Case No.583/2026, whereby the application filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail came to be rejected.

The case has been registered against the appellants and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and Sections 115(2), 329(3), 351(3) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

Notice of this appeal was serviced to the respondent No.1-State. Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) has appeared for the respondent No.1 and filed objections. The Respondent No.2 is represented through learned counsel. The Respondent No.3 has been served with notice and is represented through counsel.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that, vakalath has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 and seeks time to file objections to the appeal. Learned HCGP has already filed objections.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

The facts of the case in brief, are that on 22.05.2026 at about 10.30 a.m., when the complainant and her husband-Udaykumar were in their agricultural land, the accused No.2 is alleged to have shown his hand, in connection with a quarrel took place between the parties. It is alleged that, during the said quarrel the accused abused the complainant by referring to her caste. In this regard, the complaint came to be lodged against the 26 accused persons.

After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. The case against the remaining accused persons has not been proceeded with, as stated in the charge-sheet.

The appellants/accused approached the learned Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. However, the said application came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute an offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It is submitted that, the alleged incident took place in the private agricultural land of the complainant and, therefore, the essential ingredient of the offence relating to commission of the alleged caste-based abuse “in any place within public view” is not prima facie established.

Learned counsel would further submit that the present appeal was filed on 27.08.2026 and by that time, the investigation had already been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has subsequently issued a non-bailable warrants against the appellants. Therefore, the appellants apprehend their arrest and seek protection by way of anticipatory bail.

It is further contended that, insofar as the offences under the BNS are concerned, none of the offences alleged against the appellants is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the allegations, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP would oppose the appeal and submit that, serious allegations have been made against the appellants and the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act have been invoked. It is further submitted that, the statutory bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act operates against the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case is made out. Hence, learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 also opposes the appeal and seeks time to file detailed objections.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the following point arises for consideration:

Whether the appellants/accused have made out sufficient grounds for setting aside the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayanagara District, Hosapete, and for granting them anticipatory bail?

The allegations against the appellants arise out of a quarrel which is stated to have taken place on 22.05.2026 at about 10.30 a.m. when the complainant and her husband were present in their agricultural land. It is alleged that, during the quarrel the complainant was abused by referring to her caste.

At this stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of the evidence or undertake a mini-trial. However, where the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act are invoked, it is necessary to examine whether the allegations, on their face disclose a prima facie offence for attracting the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the said Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, has held that, although Section 18 and Section 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act exclude the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in cases under the said Act, where the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act, the bar contained under Sections 18 and 18A would not apply.

In the present case, the allegation regarding caste-based abuse is stated to have occurred when the complainant and her husband were in their agricultural land. The material placed before this Court at this stage, does not disclose with sufficient clarity that the alleged caste-based abuse was committed in a place within public view, which is an essential ingredient relevant to offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The Supreme Court has reiterated that, for an offence under Section 3(1)(s), the alleged caste-name abuse must occur “in any place within public view.”

Merely because the alleged incident occurred in an agricultural land, it cannot by itself be concluded that the place was outside public view. The relevant consideration is whether the alleged act occurred in a place within public view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the present case, on the material presently available, the essential ingredient is not prima facie established so as to attract the statutory bar.

It is also relevant that, the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the appellants does not appear to be necessary at this stage.

Further, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the offences under the BNS alleged against the appellants are not offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The seriousness of an allegation is undoubtedly a relevant consideration, but the same has to be considered along with the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, completion of investigation and the other circumstances of the case.

The fact that, the Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrants after filing of the charge-sheet, by itself, would not preclude consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail, particularly when the appellants are seeking protection from arrest and the investigation has already been completed.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the agricultural land, the absence of prima facie material sufficient to attract the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, and the fact that, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the appellants have made out sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the Affirmative. This court proceeds to pass the following:

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayanagara District, Hosapete, rejecting the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellants/accused in Crl. Misc. No.336/2026 is hereby set aside.

In the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2026 of Hagaribommanahalli Police Station, the appellants/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions: