Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/1349/2026 of SRI.MUNIRAJU B Vs STATE BY BENGALURU RURAL on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010555972026 NC: 2026:KHC:47635 CRL.A No. 1349 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2026 (U/S 14( A ) (2)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU B, S/O LATE BASAPPA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. MUNIRAJU B,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
2.
SRI. SANANDA GANESH B,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
3.
SRI. NAGESH B,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
4.
SRI. DARSHAN,
S/O SRI. MUNIRAJU B,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
5.
SRI. RAVI SHANKAR N,
S/O SRI. NAGESH B,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
6.
SRI. TEJU KUMAR N,
S/O SRI. NAGESH B,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
7.
SRI. ABHISHEK,
S/O SRI. MUNIRAJU B,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
HC-KAR
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
8.
SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR,
S/O SRI. MANJUNATH S,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G. RAKESH RAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE BY BENGALURU RURAL
DCRE POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
2.
SANTOSH KUMAR K. M.
S/O. MUNIYAPPA K.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
HC-KAR
KAMPALINGAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. JAVEED., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. JAYASIMHA K. P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
----
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS CRL.A AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
07.08.2026, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL DISTSTRICT, IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1665/2026,
AND
ENLARGE/RELEASE
THE
APPELLANTS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH
CR.NO.15/2026 OF DCRE P.S. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 74, 189, 189(1), 190 OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 8 seeking anticipatory bail in Cr.No.15/2026 registered by the respondent/Police for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 74, 189, 189(1) r/w 190 of Baratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2026, a survey was conducted in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.3. At that time, the children of one Puttananjappa objected to the said survey and went away. The officials from the office of the Tahsildar, Devanahalli, had also returned to their office. At that time, the complainant and other family members were present on the said land. On the same day, at about 11.30 am, the children of Basappa trespassed into the land, picked up a quarrel with the complainant and his family members, and started abusing them in a vulgar language and also by naming the caste. Consequently, the complainant and other members
HC-KAR
sustained injuries. Thereafter, after obtaining medical treatment, lodged a complaint.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are the innocent of the alleged offence and there are omnibus allegations made out against all the appellants. No particular overt-act is attributed in respect of the offences relating to SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
4. It is further submitted that there is a delay of 05 days in filing the complaint. The complaint had been filed after having due deliberations. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate prima facie the materials to attract the ingredients of SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act to consider their application.
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the complaint, prima facie, I am satisfied that the ingredients of sufficient to deny the anticipatory bail.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal stands dismissed with liberty to approach the trial Court for regular bail. ii) If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the said application and dispose of the same day without being influenced by the observations made in this order. iii) The learned counsel for the appellants is directed to serve the copy in advance to the prosecutor and also to the de-facto complainant to facilitate the Court to dispose of the matter on the same day.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NR/-, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33