High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused No.2 in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Caste-Based Intent. The court held that without specific averments of caste-based insult or intimidation, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is not attracted, and the appellant is entitled to regular bail.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sri Syed Parveez Mushraff, accused No.2 in Crime No.205/2025 registered at Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru, filed an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) seeking regular bail. The case was pending as Spl.C.C.No.1119/2025 before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71). The appellant had been arrested for alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant's bail application (Crl.Misc.No.4289/2025) was rejected by the trial court, leading to the present appeal. The appellant, represented by Sri Naushad Pasha, argued that the allegations were false and that there was no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act as the alleged acts were not committed on the ground of caste. The State, represented by Addl. SPP Smt. Pushpalatha, opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The court examined the complaint and found that the allegations did not specifically state that the accused insulted or intimidated the victim on the ground of caste. The court noted that the victim's statement only mentioned that the accused abused her with filthy language and threatened her, but did not indicate that the abuse was caste-based. The court held that without a specific averment of caste-based intent, a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out, and therefore the bar under Section 18 does not apply. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions: the appellant shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, shall not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates, and shall not commit similar offences. The court clarified that the observations were only for the purpose of bail and shall not influence the trial.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - SC/ST Act - Prima Facie Case - Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 - The appellant sought bail for offences under BNS and SC/ST Act. The court examined whether a prima facie case exists for the offences under the SC/ST Act, particularly the requirement of caste-based intent. Held that the allegations do not prima facie disclose that the accused insulted or intimidated the victim on the ground of caste, and thus the bar under Section 18 is not attracted. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Law - Bail - SC/ST Act - Bar under Section 18 - Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 - The court considered the bar under Section 18 which restricts bail unless a prima facie case is not made out. Held that since the allegations lack specific averments of caste-based intent, the bar does not apply, and the appellant is entitled to bail. (Paras 8-10)

C) Criminal Law - Bail - Conditions - Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 - The court granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing a bond, not tampering with evidence, and appearing before the trial court. Held that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties. (Para 11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, considering the allegations and the bar under Section 18 of the Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.05.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.4289/2025 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail in Crime No.205/2025 (Spl.C.C.No.1119/2025) subject to conditions: executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, not tampering with evidence, appearing before the trial court on all hearing dates, and not committing similar offences.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act
  • 1989
  • Prima facie case
  • Caste-based intent
  • Section 3(1)(r)
  • 3(1)(w)(i)(ii)
  • 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
  • Section 115(2)
  • 126(2)
  • 351(2)
  • 351(3)
  • 352
  • 64 r/w 3(5) of BNS
  • 2023
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 5

CRL.A No. 1493 of 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))

2025-09-04

S Rachaiah

Sri Naushad Pasha (for appellant), Smt. Pushpalatha (Addl. SPP for R1)

Sri Syed Parveez Mushraff

State of Karnataka and Kumari Monika Kumari

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against rejection of regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Remedy Sought

Appellant (accused No.2) sought enlargement on regular bail in Crime No.205/2025 (Spl.C.C.No.1119/2025) for offences under BNS and SC/ST Act.

Filing Reason

The appellant's bail application was rejected by the trial court, leading to the present appeal.

Previous Decisions

The trial court rejected the appellant's bail application in Crl.Misc.No.4289/2025.

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989? Whether a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the allegations are false and there is no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act as the alleged acts were not on the ground of caste. State opposed bail citing seriousness of offences and bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

Ratio Decidendi

For the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to apply, there must be a prima facie case that the alleged offence was committed on the ground of caste. In the absence of specific averments indicating caste-based intent, the bar is not attracted, and the accused is entitled to bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The allegations made in the complaint do not specifically state that the accused insulted or intimidated the victim on the ground of caste. In the absence of specific averments that the alleged act was committed on the ground of caste, a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is not made out. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted.

Procedural History

The appellant was arrested in Crime No.205/2025 registered at Mahadevapura Police Station. He filed a bail application (Crl.Misc.No.4289/2025) before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which was rejected on 24.05.2025. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court of Karnataka.

Acts & Sections

  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v), 14(A)(2), 18
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 64, 3(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused No.2 in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Caste-Based Intent. The court held that without specific averments of caste-based insult or intimidation, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Caste Certificate Scrutiny Case — Affinity Test Cannot Be Sole Basis to Invalidate Claim When Pre-Constitutional Documents Exist. Pre-Constitutional documents have greater evidentiary value than the Affinity Test, and...