(Prayer: This Crl.A. is filed u/S 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 praying to a. set aside the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc No.71/2026 whereby the Application for Anticipatory Bail of the appellants has been rejected. b. allow this appeal and consequently enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.18/2026 of Rural Police Station Shivamogga, for the offences u/S 115(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of Bns and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(VA)of SC/ST (POA) Act.)

Oral Judgment

1. Accused/Appellants on commission of offences punishable under sections 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 in Crime No.18/2026 registered before the Shivamogga Rural Police Station upon a complaint filed by the second respondent herein are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.71/2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') by which the application filed by them under section 482 BNSS is rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants taking this Court through the records, submits that the alleged incident had taken place on 15.01.2026 at about 10.00 p.m. He submits that on the said date and time, there was jatra in the village of the appellants. On the said occasion, an orchestra was arranged, in which certain Parashuram, Chethu, Malathesh, Thippesh, Venkatesh, Sureshappa, Abhi, and Yeshwanth of neighbouring village were dancing to DJ music right in front of the stage obstructing the view of the people who are seated in the front row, to which the appellant No.1, who is aged 68 years, had asked the said persons to dance by the side and the said persons got enraged and started abusing and accusing appellant No.1. The villagers intervened and advised the said persons not to create commotion which lead to further scuffle.

3. Thereafter, one of the members of the said group, who had already come with machete, had assaulted Arun Kumar-appellant No.2, son of appellant No.1 causing severe bleeding injuries. Due to which the said Arun Kumar-appellant No.2 fell unconscious to the ground. The said persons had further instigated one Thippesh to finish off Arun Kumar- appellant No.2. However with the intervention of appellant No.1 herein, Malleshappa and Manjapppa, the said Arun Kumar-appellant No.2 was taken to McGANN Hospital for treatment.

4. One Nagarajappa lodged a complaint on 16.01.2026 at about 1.00 a.m., before the Shivamogga Rural Police which was registered in Crime No.17/2026 for the offences punishable under sections 352, 118(1), 109, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the present complaint, subject matter of this appeal was filed subsequently by complainant-respondent No.2 on the same day at 3.30 a.m., against the appellants herein alleging that while they were dancing, the appellants herein had humiliated them by abusing them in the filthy language in the name of their caste and had also pulled them away from the place of orchestra, which was witnessed by one Thimmesh, Sureshappa and others of the same village. Thus, upon the said complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein the case in Crime No.18/2026 came to be registered for the offences punishable under sections as noted hereinabove. He further submits that the case in Crime No.18/2026 is an after thought, only to cover up their guilt and commission of offence of causing grievous injury onto the head of the respondent No.2 herein. He further submits medical records of the McGann District Government Hospital, Shivamogga at which both the appellant No.2 and the said persons had taken treatment would indicate that the appellant No.2 had gone first and was admitted and thereafter the said persons had gone to the same hospital, which is another indication of the fact that the present complaint is filed as a counter blast.

6. He submits that even on the merits, no case can be made out falling under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, inasmuch as, according to the complainant's allegation all the three appellants and eight to ten others at once, in unison, abused the complainant in the name of his caste when orchestra was on. That in the sound decibel of DJ music, it was improbable and impossible for him to have heard all the three accused persons and eight to ten others at once abusing him. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are clearly fabricated to implicate the appellants herein with this counter case. Hence, he submits appellants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant-respondent No.2 submits that the averments and allegations made in the complaint subject matter of the present appeal makes out prima-facie case of appellants herein having committed the offences punishable under the provisions of the Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

8. On the other hand, leaned HCGP opposing the appeal refers to Section 18 of the Act, 1989, submits there is a statutory bar for granting the relief. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Heard and perused the records.

10. Undisputedly, one Nagarajappa of the said village has filed a compliant in Crime No.17/2026 at 01.00 a.m., of 16.01.2026, alleging commotion, quarrel created by the accused persons therein in which the respondent No.2 herein has been arraigned as accused No.8, they causing bleeding injury by assaulting with a machete on the head of appellant No.2 herein, resulting in registration of said case for the offences punishable Sections 352, 118(1), 109, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

11. Contents of the FIR of Crime No.17/2026 reads as under :





12. The FIR in the present case is registered at 03.30 a.m., on the same day i.e., on 16.01.2026, at the instance of respondent No.2 herein, who is accused No.8 in the earlier complaint, alleging assault and abuse in the name of their caste by the appellants herein and 8 to 10 others. Contents of the FIR of Crime No.18/2026 reads as under :





13. This Court had directed learned HCGP to secure instruction as to the time at which the appellant No.2 herein and the accused persons in Crime No.17/2026 got admitted and treated in the said McGann District Government Hospital, Shivamogga. On instructions, learned HCGP submits that it is the appellant No.2 who got admitted and treated first in the said Hospital and thereafter the complainant-respondent No.2 herein in Crime No.17/2026 got admitted.

14. Thus the sequence of events noted above indicate that the complaint on behalf of the appellants herein was registered in Crime No.17/2026 at first instance and followed by the complaint by respondent No.2 herein.

15. Though, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned HCGP referring to Section 18 of the Act at the first blush appears to be acceptable, little further probe into the facts of the case as emanating in the FIRs would indicate that the incident has taken place amidst celebration of Village Jathra and during ongoing orchestra event. The allegations of abuse in the name of caste of the complainant-respondent No.2 herein are attributed against the appellants herein and eight to ten others.

16. Considering the sequence of events narrated above, place, time and the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the incident which has been allegedly heard and seen by others, this Court is not persuade regarding prima facie commission of offence by the appellants herein.

17. Narration of facts and attending circumstances of the matter as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants indicate that incident appeared to have taken place in the spur of moment under grave provocation particularly in the light of assault by the complainant and his associates who are the accused in Crime No.17/2026 onto the head of appellant No.2 herein. These aspects of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Reading the contents of the complaint in isolation to the aforesaid circumstances may lead to acceptance of the submission being made by learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2249 referring to various provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 as well as SC/ST (POA) Act at paragraphs 69, 70, 72 and 80 has held as under:

          "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 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".

19. The same is reiterated in the case of Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and another in SLP (CRL) No.12144/2025 decided on 12.01.2026. The facts and circumstances of the case read in the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that there is no prima facie material of appellants herein hurling the abuse on the complainant and his associate with an intent of humiliating them in the name of their caste.

20. As regards the bar content under Section 18 of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1886, wherein at paragraph Nos.6, 6.1 and 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 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.

21. Appellant No.1 is aged 68 years, stated to be the local resident of the village. Appellant No.2 is his son, who was injured in the alleged attack by the complainant and his associates, which matter is also under investigation. Appellant No.3 is also local resident. It is submitted that the defacto complainant-respondent No.2 and his associates have been granted bail in the complaint lodged on behalf of the appellants herein in crime No.17/2026.

22. Appellants herein belong to Madike Chiluru Village and the complainant and his associated belongs to Hadona Halli Village. Thus, they belong to two different villages.

23. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, and the circumstances narrated above this Court deems it is appropriate to exercise the discretion to grant the relief of anticipatory bail as sought for. Accordingly, following:

ORDER

          (1) The criminal appeal is allowed.

          (2) The order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.71/2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga is set aside.

          (3) The accused-appellants herein shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.18/2026 for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989, subject to following conditions:

          (i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties each for the likesum of the jurisdictional Court.

          (ii) The appellants shall appear before the jurisdictional Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and obtain regular bail.

          (iii) The appellants shall appear before the jurisdictional Police Station and mark their attendance on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. and co-operate with the investigation process till filing of charge-sheet or as requisition by the Investigation officer.

          (iv) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

          (v) The appellants shall not influence or in any manner tamper with the prosecution witnesses.