CRL.A/1312/2026 of ANJAN KUMAR.H.R., Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 August 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused seeking to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.628/2026 of respondent police pending on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 74 of BNS,2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST (POA)’ Act). Factual matrix of the case is as under:

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint came to be registered by one Mr. Manoj D.L., son of Laxman, stating that he was working as an Executive in the Paytm Company and he is residing along with his wife and children at Nelagadaranahalli. The appellant came in contact with the complainant and was maintaining a restaurant at Heggadedevanapura. One day, the appellant requested the complainant to lend him a loan.

HC-KAR

Even though the complainant tried to secure the loan for him, he could not do so. Later, the complainant requested a loan of Rs.45,000/- from the accused. The accused arranged the loan and paid the same to the complainant. When the accused demanded repayment, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- and requested time to pay the balance. On 23.03.2026, the accused called the complainant over the phone, but the complainant did not receive the call. Therefore, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant, abused and assaulted him by naming the caste of the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent – Police registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

4. Heard Sri. Prabhakara T.C., learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. S. Javeed, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. H.P. Hanakhande, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

HC-KAR

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated in a false case. In fact, the appellant had lent an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant, but the complainant did not repay the same. Therefore, there was an altercation between the complainant and the appellant, during which some words were exchanged between them. However, taking advantage of the fact that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste, the complainant made baseless allegations against the appellant.

6. It is further submitted that the appellant is running a Restaurant and is the sole earning member of his family. If he is arrested by the respondent-police, it would cause severe harm to his reputation. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his arrest. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the averments of the

HC-KAR

complaint clearly indicate that the ingredients of the provisions under the SC/ST Act are attracted; therefore, anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Making such submissions, learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 - State prays to dismiss the appeal.

8. Similarly, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the appeal by adopting the arguments addressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1 State.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it makes clear that the ingredients of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, would attract on the given set of facts, Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26