Allegations of Harassment and Caste Abuse Lead to Rejection of Bail Application
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Sri Manjunatha N, who was accused of committing offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The decision was delivered by Justice R. Nataraj on May 26, 2026, in response to the criminal petition No. 7025 of 2026.
The case against the petitioner, Mr. Manjunatha, arose from a complaint lodged by a minor girl, who accused him of harassment, stalking, and caste-based abuse. The allegations included inappropriate touching, threats of violence, and demands for sexual favors. The complainant, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, reported that the accused had threatened her with acid attacks and murder, further exacerbating the seriousness of the charges.
The Court held that there was prima facie evidence against Mr. Manjunatha, making the anticipatory bail application unsustainable. The ruling cited the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, which prohibits anticipatory bail in cases involving atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court also referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, reinforcing the legal position that anticipatory bail is not maintainable when prima facie evidence exists.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accusations were fabricated and motivated by an attempt to extort money and property. However, the High Court Government Pleader countered these claims, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation, especially given the involvement of a minor and the applicability of the POCSO Act.
In its conclusion, the Court advised that while the anticipatory bail was denied, the petitioner could still seek relief by appearing before the trial court and filing an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The trial court was directed to consider any such application promptly and pass appropriate orders.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's stringent stance on offenses involving vulnerable groups and the rigorous application of legal provisions designed to protect them.
Bottom line:-
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable in cases where prima facie evidence exists against the accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, 483; Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(r)(s); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 8, 12
Sri Manjunatha N v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2909804
