Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagesha M C vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGESHA M C
S/O CHANDRAPPA M D,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT H MELANAHALLI,
GANADHALU POST,
HULIYAR HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
PIN 572218.
(AS PER AS ADHAR CARD)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUMA B N BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE,
Location:
HIGH BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE 01.
2. SMT. BHAGYA B A,
W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.103, 4TH CROSS,
NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL,
NELAGADARANAHALLI,
NAGASANDRA POST,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
PIN 560073.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, H.C.G.P. FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
R/W. SECTION 482 OF BNSS ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 26.02.2026 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.551/2026
BY C/C.LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL.JUDGE BENGALURU, CCH-71 AND RELEASE THE
APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES P/U/S 74,126(2),351(2),115(2) AND 352 OF BNS
ACT THE SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015, UNDER
SEC.3(1)(r)(s) IN THEIR CRIME NO.25/2026 OF RESPONDENT
PEENYA P.S. BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED HONBLE COURT OF C/C. LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE BENGALURU CCH-71.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the accused in Crime No.25/2026
registered in Peenya Police Station for the offences punishable
under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes And The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2015 (SC&ST(POA)Act for short) and under Sections 74,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
126(2), 351(2), 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Act, 2023 (BNS Act), being aggrieved by the order dated
26.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.551/2026 on the file of LXX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Judge),
Bengaluru,
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a Supervisor of R.A. Fashion Garments Factory,
where the respondent No.2-complainant is working as a Tailor.
It is in the usual course of business, the appellant had
supervised the quality of tailoring work by the respondent No.2
– complainant. The complaint is filed only with an ulterior
motive without any substance. He submits that perusal of the
complaint do not reveal commission of any offence. Hence,
seeks for allowing the appeal.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader justifying
the order impugned and also referring to Section 18 of the
SC&ST(POA) Act submits that there is a legal bar for granting
anticipatory bail. Therefore, seeks for rejection of appeal.
4. Despite service of notice to respondent No.2 – de
facto complainant is not present.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
perused the records.
6. A complaint dated 13.01.2026 came to be filed by
respondent No.2-de facto complainant. The contents of
complaint are as under:
"ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ ೆ ಾನು ೕಲ ಂಡ
ಾಸದ ಸು ಾರು 7 ವಷ ಗ!ಂದ "ಾಸ"ಾ#ದು$ ಚನ& ಾಯಕನ
(ಾಳ*ದ ರುವ R. A. Fashion ಎಂಬ ,ಾ ಂ -. ನ ಕ ೆದ ಆರು
ವಷ ಗ!ಂದ ,ಾ ಂ - ನ Tailoring ೆಲಸ ಾ0 ೊಂ0ರು ೆ2ೕ ೆ.
ಈ#ರು"ಾಗ ಕ ೆದ 3 4ಂಗ!5ಂದ ಅ7ೇ ,ಾ ಂ -. ನ ಾ,ೇಶ
ಎಂಬುವವನು Tailoring ೆಲಸದ ದು$ ನನ,ೆ ಾನ ಕ"ಾ# 9ಂ:ೆ
5ೕಡು ಾ2, <ಾ=,ೆ ಬಂದಂ ೆ >ುಲಕ ಾರಣ ೆ ಅವಚ*”ಾ# <ೈಯು42ದ$ನು
ಆದAೆ ಈ Bನ ಾ : 13.01.2026 ರಂದು ಸಂDೆ ,ಾ ಂ -. Eಡುವ
ಸಮಯ ಸು ಾರು 6 ಗಂHೆಯ ಾ,ೇಶನು ೆಲಸದ ಷಯ”ಾ# ನನ,ೆ
5ೕನು ಸIJಾ# Tailoring ೆಲಸ ಾಡು42ಲ ಎಂದು DೋAಾ#
ಗದI ದನು, ಇದIಂದ ಾನು 5ಮL ೆಲಸ ಾವM ಾ0 ನಮL ೆಲಸ
ಾನು ಾಡು ೆ2ೕ ೆ ಎಂBದ$ ೆ ಮತ2ಷುO DೋAಾ# ಗದIಸು ಾ2 5ನ&
ಅಮLP :ೊ ೆ ಮುಂQೆ 5ನ&ಮLP Dಾ4 ಾ ೇಯ <ೆವ Rಂದು <ೈದು,
ಾನು ಮJಾ 7ೆ ೊಟುO ಾತ ಾ0 ಏನ ೆ ಬU*ೕದು ಎಂದು ೇ!7ಾಗ
ಅವನು ಮತ2ಷುO VO,ೆದು$ ನನ& ಮುಂ7ೆ ಬಂದು ತWೆ ಕೂದಲು
90ದು ೊಂಡು ೖ ೕ ನ ಬHೆO ಎ ೆದು ನನ&ನು& ಅಡXಗVO ಬಲಕ ೆ&,ೆ
DೋAಾ# ೈ=ಂದ YೊQೆದು ೋವMಂಟು ಾ0 ,ಾಯಪ0 ದನು ನಂತರ
ಅಳ[ ಾ2 \Aಾ07ಾಗ ಅವನು ಸುಮL5ರ7ೇ 5ನ&ಮLP ಸೂ ೆ ಮುಂQೆ,
Dಾ4 ಾ ೇಯ ಎಂದು <ೈದು ಾನು 5ನ&ನು& ಸುಮL ೆ EಡುವMBಲ ಒಂದು
ಗ4 ಾ^ಸು ೆ2ೕ ೆಂದು _ೕವ <ೆದI ೆ Yಾ`ರು ಾ2 ೆ. ನಂತರ ಾನು aಾನ
ತbc ೆಳಗQೆ E7ಾ$ಗ ಅWೇ ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ Aೇdಾ ಪeDಾ ರ ೕಶ ಮತು2
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
ಇತರರು :ೇIದಂ ೆ ನನ&ನು& ಎEf 5ೕರು ಕು0 ಸ ಾgಾನ ಪ0 ದರು
ೆಲ ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ನನ,ೆ ಪIಚಯ ರುವ ನಮL ಸಂಬಂ Jಾದ
ೕAಾಂಜ ೇಯ ರವರನು& ಕAೆ iಾjೆ,ೆ ಬಂBದು$ ಆದ$Iಂದ ಾ,ೇಶ
ಎಂಬುವವನು ನನ,ೆ ಅಡXಗVO ಸೂ ೆಮುಂQೆ Dಾ4 ಾ ೆಯ ಎಂದು
ತುಚk”ಾ# <ೈದು _ೕವ <ೆದI ೆ Yಾ` ೈ=ಂದ ನನ& ಬಲ ೆ ೆ&,ೆ YೊQೆBದು$
ಆತನ ೕWೆ ಾನೂನು ಕlಮ ಜರು#ಸ<ೇ ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮL
ೇ! ೊಳ[m ೆ2ೕ ೆ ಮ ೆ2 ನನ,ೆ ಾ*ಯ ಒದ#ಸ<ೇ ೆಂದು ೇ! ೊಳ[m ೆ2ೕ ೆ
ಾ,ೇಶನು ಒಕ ಗ ಾ#ದು$ ಾನು ,ೋ ಎಂದು ,ೊ42ದು$
ಉ7ೆ$ೕಶಪeವ ಕ”ಾ# Dಾ4 ಬ,ೆo <ೈBರು ಾ2 ೆ.”
7. Perusal of the aforesaid complaint indicates that the
appellant herein allegedly abused and physically assaulted and
outraged the modesty of respondent No.2 – complainant on the
issue of tailoring work. There is no reference to usage of any
specific name/term/word indicating the caste of respondent
No.2 – de facto complainant by the accused – appellant.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria v.
State of Kerala and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 2249, at paragraphs 62, 69, 70, 72 and 80 has held as
under:
“62. We would like to refer to the observations of this
Court in Ram Krishna Balothia (supra) to further
elaborate upon the idea of “humiliation” as it has been
used under the Act, 1989. It was observed in the said case
that the offences enumerated under the Act, 1989 belong
to a separate category as they arise from the practice of
‘untouchability’ and thus the Parliament was competent to
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026HC-KAR
enact special laws treating such offences and offenders as
belonging to a separate category. Referring to the
Statements of Objects and Purposes of the Act, 1989 it
was observed by this Court that the object behind the
introduction of the Act, 1989 was to afford statutory
protection to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, who were terrorised and subjected to humiliation
and indignations upon assertion of their civil rights and
resistance to the practice of untouchability. For this
reason, mere fact that the person subjected to insult or
intimidation belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe would not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r)
unless it was the intention of the accused to subject the
concerned person to caste-based humiliation.
69. What appears from the aforesaid discussion is
that the expression “intent to humiliate” as it appears in
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 must necessarily be
construed in the larger context in which the concept of
humiliation of the marginalised groups has been understood
by various scholars. It is not ordinary insult or intimidation
which would amount to ‘humiliation’ that is sought to be
made punishable under the Act, 1989. The Parliament, by
way of different legislations, has over the years sought to
target humiliation based on different grounds and identities
which exist in the society. The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeks to punish humiliation
based on gender inequalities by specifically including the
term ‘humiliation’ in the definition of “domestic violence”.
Similarly, The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 includes
treatment causing humiliation to a female employee and
which may likely affect her health and safety within the
definition of sexual harassment.
70. In our considered view, it is in a similar vein
that the term ‘humiliation’ as it appears in Section 3(1)(r)
of the Act, 1989 must be construed, that is, in a way that it
deprecates the infliction of humiliation against members of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes wherein such
humiliation is intricately associated with the caste identity
of such members.
72. It is clear from a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision that any insult against a member of a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the ground of “untouchability”
was punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of
six months under the Civil Rights Act. With the passage of
time, it was realised by the legislature that the Civil Rights
Act was not adequately sufficient to tackle caste-based
offences and the practice of “untouchability”, leading to the
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
enactment of the Act, 1989 introducing more stringent
provisions for combating such practices. Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act, 1989 should, thus, be seen in the context of
Section 7(1)(d) of the Civil Rights Act. Seen thus, the words
“with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe” become inseparable from the
underlying idea of “untouchability” which is sought to be
remedied and punished by the Act, 1989.
80. At the cost of repetition, the words in Section
3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are altogether different. Mere
knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to
attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed
earlier, the offence must have been committed against the
person on the ground or for the reason that such person is
a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When
we are considering whether prima facie materials exist,
warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to
indicate that the allegations/statements alleged to have
been made by the appellant were for the reason that the
complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste”.
9. Since the complaint do not disclose usage of any
specific term identifying the caste of respondent No.2-
complainant, at this juncture, this Court is of the considered
view that no prima facie case is made out by the prosecution.
10. As regards bar contained under Section 18 of
SC&ST(POA) Act, the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs
Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 1886 at paragraphs 6, 6.1, 6.2 has held as under:
“6 .In light of the parameters in relation to the
applicability of Section 18 of the Act emanating from afore-
discussed various decisions of this Court, the proposition could
be summarised that as the provision of Section 18 of
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026HC-KAR
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 with
express language excludes the applicability of Section 438, Cr.
P.C., it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in
absolute terms in relations to the arrest of a person who faces
specific accusations of having committed the offence under the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act. The benefit of
anticipatory bail for such an accused is taken off.
6.1. The absolute nature of bar, however, could be read
and has to be applied with a rider. In a given case where on the
face of it the offence under Section 3 of the Act is found to have
not been made out and that the accusations relating to the
commission of such offence are devoid of prima facie merits,
the Court has a room to exercise the discretion to grant
anticipatory bail to the accused under Section 438 of the Code.
6.2. Non-making of prima facie case about the commission
of offence is perceived to be such a situation where the Court
can arrive at such a conclusion in the first blush itself or by way
of the first impression upon very reading of the averments in the
FIR. The contents and the allegations in the FIR would be
decisive in this regard. Furthermore, in reaching a conclusion as
to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, it would not
be permissible for the Court to travel into the evidentiary realm
or to consider other materials, nor the Court could advert to
conduct a mini trial.”
11. The accused – appellant is stated to be working as a
Supervisor of R.A. Fashion Garments Factory and permanent
resident of Bengaluru.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(1) Appeal is allowed.
(2) Order dated 26.02.2026 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.551/2026 on the file of the LXX Additional
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026HC-KAR
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru (CCHNo.71) is set aside.
(3) The appellant – accused shall be released on bail in
the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2026 registered by
Peenya Police Station for the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes And The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015
(SC&ST(POA)Act) and under Sections 74, 126(2),
351(2), 115(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act,
2023, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant – accused shall execute a self
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two
sureties for the likesum.
(ii) He shall appear before the regular Court
and obtain regular bail within 15 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) He shall not influence or in any manner
tamper with the prosecution witness.
(iv) He shall appear before the jurisdictional
police station and mark his attendance on
every alternate Sunday between 10 a.m.
and 6 p.m. and he shall co-operate with the
investigation process till filing of the
chargesheet or appear before them
whenever called upon.
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20365
CRL.A No. 490 of 2026
HC-KAR
(v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial
Court without prior permission.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
