Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand S/O Siddalingappa Gotadaki vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100019 OF 2026
(U/S.14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ANAND S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA GOTADAKI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O. HOUSE NO.1862, SOMAVAR PETH,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-571326.
2. SRI DUNDESH S/O. BASAVARAJ SHIRASANGI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O. HOUSE NO.1519, AMBIGER GALLI,
Digitally signed by
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-571326.
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
...APPELLANTS
Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI,
GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
2. SRI K. R. GUDAJ,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. ADIJAMBAV NAGAR, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-571326.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI VINAYAK MEGUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2)
OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THE EXCLUSIVE
SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED FOR OFFENCES TRIABLE UNDER
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT AT: BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC NO.001585/2025
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL APPEAL
BY ENLARGING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.5 AND 6 ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
DEEMED FIT IN GOKAK TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.166/2025, DATED
27/11/2025, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B AND 149 OF
IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(g), 3(1) (f) OF THE SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY IN SO FAR AS PRESENT
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO 5 AND 6 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of
the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC and ST Act,
1989’), seeking to enlarge the appellants/accused Nos.5
and 6 on anticipatory bail with the following prayer:
“PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most humbly prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Set aside the order dated 06.01.2026 passed
by the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge,
the Exclusive Special Court Constituted for
offences triable under Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at
Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.001585/2025.
b) And consequently allow the present criminal
appeal by enlarging the appellants/accused Nos.5
and 6 on Anticipatory Bail on such terms and
conditions as deemed fit in Gokak Town PS Crime
No.166/2025, dated 27.11.2025, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
465, 468, 120B and 149 of IPC and U/S 3(1) (g),
3(1) (f) of the SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 in the interest of
justice and equity insofar as present
appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 are concerned.”
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. The appeal is filed seeking anticipatory bail to the
appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 in connection with the
offences alleged as described above.
3. It is the brief case of prosecution that as per the
complaint/FIR averments, the complainant belongs to a
member of the Scheduled Tribe and it is stated that on
08.01.1938, four persons namely, Santavva Shetya Gudaz;
Yallavva Shatya Gudaz; Ranavva D/o. Ramappa Gudaz and
Santya Shatya Myageri were granted the land bearing
Sy.No.387/S and accordingly their names were entered in
the revenue records. Further, it is the case of prosecution
that the grandmother of the complainant had obtained the
land to the extent of 03 acre 29 guntas in Sy.No.387/S and
was cultivating the same.
4. It is the case of prosecution that at a later point
of time, other names have been entered in the revenue
records and on 18.11.2024, the complainant has filed an
application for correction of their names entered in the
records in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.387/S/1, but it
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
is noticed that accused No.1 himself impersonated and all
the accused conspired to dupe the land to themselves for
unlawful gain and to shield common intention,
prepared/created concocted documents and by making
impersonation showed that the land was sold out. Thus,
deprived the right of the complainant to use the land as
owner and dispossessed the complainant. For which, the
allegation against the appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6, who
are the bond writers and they have facilitated the other
accused in these types of conveyance transactions.
Therefore, the offences are registered as above stated.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that these appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 are only the
bond writers and they did not have any role in committing
the offences as alleged as against the complainant. Upon
bare perusal of the complaint, the role played by the
appellants is shown as they are only bond writers and
nothing more than that. These appellants, being accused
Nos.5 and 6, while discharging their duty/profession as
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
bond writers, have prepared deeds and except this there is
no other accusation in the complaint. Therefore, the
appellants did not even know to which caste the
complainant belongs and as usual in routine, whenever the
customers approach them they will prepare deeds and hand
over the same to them. Except these activities, there are no
other activities so as to involve the appellants in the
offences alleged as per the complaint averments. Therefore,
these accusations do not depict a prima facie case. Hence, it
is prayed to enlarge the appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 on
anticipatory bail.
6. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants submitted that as per the principle of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS1, though there is a bar under Section 18 and 18A
of the SC and ST Act, 1989, for consideration of the
anticipatory bail, where the complaint does not disclose
1
(2020) 4 SCC 727
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
prima facie case, then requests for anticipatory bail would
be considered. Therefore, by placing reliance on this
judgment prays to grant an order of anticipatory bail to the
appellants.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP
vehemently submitted that the appellants/accused Nos.5
and 6 have been involved in 08 other cases and they are
habitual offenders. Among the 08 other cases, 04 cases are
pertaining to the similar offences of this nature as involved
in this case. Therefore, the appellants are in the habit of
making such fraudulent transactions on the guise of bond
writers and in this regard, the respondents have furnished
other cases in which the present appellants are involved in
their statement of objections. Hence, submitted that though
among the 08 cases, there are 04 cases pertaining to
different offences, the other 04 offences are of a similar
type of offences as alleged in the present case. Therefore,
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
the appellants/accused Nos.5 and 6 are in the habit of
making such offences and this prima facie constitutes that
the appellants have committed the offences as alleged.
8. Further submitted that due to which the
complainant and his family were dispossessed while
interfering with the possession of the complainant. Hence,
the offences under Section 3(1) (f) and (g) of the SC and
ST Act, 1989, attract the other appropriate offences.
Therefore, when this is prima facie case is revealed, the
benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be extended. Hence,
prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Upon considering the averments made in the
complaint, the allegation against the appellants is that they
are bond writers and that they were aware that accused
Nos.1 to 4 were committing the alleged offences.
Knowingfully well about these facts, they allegedly colluded
with accused Nos.1 to 4 and actively participated in the
commission of the offences alleged.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
10. If this were the only circumstance in the case,
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants could have been considered in the light of the
principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union of India and
others, as stated supra. In paragraphs Nos.11 and 33, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“11. Concerning the applicability of provisions
of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases
under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does
not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the
provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by
Sections 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have
clarified this aspect while deciding the review
petitions.
33. I would only add a caveat with the
observation and emphasize that while considering any
application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has
to balance the two interests: i.e. that the power is not
so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that
under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but
that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very
exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is
made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if
such orders are not made in those classes of cases,
the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice
or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent
terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail,
absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the
power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the
intention of Parliament.”
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
11. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
though there is a bar to consider the plea of anticipatory
bail, if the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case,
the benefit of pre-arrest bail may be granted. In this
regard, not only the averments in the complaint but also
the conduct of the appellants has to be taken into
consideration, as explained by respondent No.1/State and
respondent No.2/complainant in their statements of
objections, particularly in paragraph No.5. The statement of
objections filed by respondent No.1/State reads as follows:
“5. It is submitted that, the appellant is the
habitual offender 8 cases are registered against him in
different crime numbers. In crime No.41/2006 for the
offences punishable U/sec.463, 464, 465, 468, 471
R/W. 149 OF IPC. Crime No.226/2009, for the
offences punishable U/sec.419, 420, 465, 468, 471,
109 R/w. 149 of IPC. Crime No.24/2012 for the
offences punishable U/sec.463, 464, 465, 468, 471,
420 of IPC. Crime No.32/2019 for the offences
punishable U/sec.427, 448, 504, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC.
Crime No.72/2020 for the offences punishable
U/sec.143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 302, 120(B),
212, 201, 109, 115, 188, 504, 506 R/w.34, 35, 37 &
149 of IPC. Crime No.166/2025 for the offences
punishable U/sec.419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B)
R/w. 149 of IPC. The above all crimes are registered
by the Gokak Town Police Station which are pending
for the trial and Crime No.24/2012 for the offences
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026HC-KAR
punishable U/sec.420 and 34 of IPC. It shows that the
appellant is the habitual offender involved in various
cases”.
12. Out of the eight cases, four cases are of a
different nature. However, the other four cases, namely
Crime Nos.41/2006, 226/2009, 24/2012 and 166/2025,
involve offences similar to those alleged in the present case.
This prima facie shows the inclination of the appellant No.1
towards the commission of such offences as he is habitual
offender committing these types of offences.
13. In the other cases mentioned above, the
question of conviction or acquittal is immaterial at this
stage, as it depends upon the evidence to be led in those
cases. However, prima facie the activities of the appellant
No.1 indicate his involvement in offences such as
impersonation, cheating, and misappropriation. Therefore,
the prosecution has shown a prima facie case against the
appellant No.1 warranting this Court not to exercise its
discretion to grant anticipatory bail. When criminal
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
conspiracy in furtherance of common intention is alleged,
custodial interrogation by the police during the course of
investigation becomes necessary. If anticipatory bail is
granted at this stage, there is every possibility of the
accused tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses,
which would hamper a fair investigation by the
Investigating Officer. Hence, this Court declines to grant
anticipatory bail.
14. Insofar as accused No.6 is concerned, the only
allegation is that he typed the bond according to the
instructions of accused No.5. The prosecution has not
produced any material to show that accused No.6 is
involved in other cases similar to those of accused No.5.
The role attributed to accused No.6 is limited to typing the
bond, and there is no prima facie material to show that he
had the intention to commit the offence alleged in the
complaint. Therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail can be
extended in favour of accused No.6. Accordingly, the appeal
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
partly succeeds by granting bail to accused No.6 and
rejecting bail to accused No.5. Accordingly the following;
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of
accused No.5 is rejected.
iii. The order dated 06.01.2026 in
Crl.Misc.No.1585/2025 passed by the III
Additional Sessions Judge, (The Designated
Court constituted offence under Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Belagavi, is hereby set aside
insofar as accused No.6 is concerned and
confirmed against accused No.5.
iv. The respondent -Police or any other Police in
the State of Karnataka are directed to release
the appellant No.2/accused No.6 in the event
of his arrest in Crime No.166/2025 of Gokak
Town police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465,
468, 471, 120B, read with Section 149 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(g),
3(1)(f) of the SC and ST (Prevention of
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3481
CRL.A No. 100019 of 2026
HC-KAR
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 of P.C. Act,
subject to the following conditions:
a) The appellant No.2 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
along with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
b) The appellant No.2 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior
permission of the Court.
c) The appellant No.2 shall not tamper and
threaten the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
d) The appellant No.2 shall mark his
attendance before the concerned police
station on every Saturday between 11.00
a.m. to 02.00 p.m.
e) The appellant No.2 shall attend the Court
regularly during the trial without fail. If not
attend for consecutive two times, it entails
cancellation of bail.
f) Violation of any one of the conditions
would entitle the prosecution to seek for
cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SRA, ASN /CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14