CRL.A/100808/2025 of SMT. BASAMMA D/O DEVAPPA SAJJANAR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 19 December 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Cr.No.166/2025 of respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Geetava Devappa kodli lodges a complaint stating that on 05.07.2012, she was working as an Assistant in Anganvadi situated at Navebhavanura and the present appellant was also working as a teacher in the same Anganvadi. There was a rift between the appellant and the complainant. It is alleged in the said complaint that the present appellant was not only being ill-treated the complainant, but also, abused her by naming the caste. Hence, this complaint.

HC-KAR

3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No. 166/2025 for the offences stated supra. The investigation is under progress.

4. Heard Sri. K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Praveen Y. Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is a lady who was working as a teacher in Anganavadi. She has been falsely implicated in this case in order to trouble her. The appellant is the sole earning member of the family. Even on reading of the entire averments of the complaint, the ingredients relating to SC/ST (POA) Act, are not forthcoming. Therefore, there is no impediment to grant anticipatory bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently submitted that, the appellant is seeking for anticipatory bail. On reading the averments of the

HC-KAR

complaint, there is a bar under Section 18(A) of SC/ST (POA), Act. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant her bail. Making such submissions, learned HCGP prays to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it would indicate that the complainant is working as an Assistant in Anganavadi where the appellant is working as a teacher. There was a rift between the appellant and the complainant. Though, it is alleged that the appellant had scolded the complainant by naming her caste, on reading the averments of the complaint, prima-facie the allegations leveled against the appellant in respect of abuse of the complainant by naming the cast is not forthcoming. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail, as prayed for. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

HC-KAR

(ii) The order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in Crl. Misc.No.466/2025 is set-aside.

(iii) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.166/2025 of respondent- police for the aforesaid offences on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iv) The appellant shall co-operate with investigation till filing of the charge sheet.

(v) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. In case, if the appellant violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/-, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1