Karnataka HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail of Theatre Owner Accused Under POCSO and SC/ST POA Act
Justice R. Nataraj of the Karnataka High Court rejected anticipatory bail for a 52-year-old theatre owner facing charges of stalking, sexual harassment, and caste-based abuse of a minor girl studying in Class 9.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 26 May 2026, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Manjunatha N, a 52-year-old owner of Shankar Theatre and agriculturalist from Ramanagara Town. The petition arose from Crime No. 27/2026 registered by Ramanagara Town Police Station for offences under Sections 352, 351(2), 329(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice R. Nataraj, sitting singly, held that prima facie material existed against the petitioner and that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, read with the Supreme Court's ruling in Rahana Jalal v. State of Kerala, disentitled him to anticipatory bail.
The Allegations in Crime No. 27/2026
The second respondent, a minor girl then studying in Class 9, lodged a complaint with Ramanagara Town Police Station on 18 March 2026. She stated that she had come to know the petitioner through a friend and that his persistent harassment had forced her to stop attending school from the academic year 2024–25.
According to the complaint, the petitioner would wait for her to return from school and touch her inappropriately. She had previously lodged a complaint about this conduct. On 14 March 2026, at around 9.00 a.m., the petitioner went near her house and abused her using her caste. He also brought four boys to her house who threatened to murder her and to throw acid on her and her grandmother.
The victim further alleged that the petitioner telephoned her and asked her to sleep with him and to bring her friends to sleep with him as well. She stated that he had threatened to stab her if she refused, and that he stalked her wherever she went.
Based on this information, Ramanagara Town Police Station registered Crime No. 27/2026 for the offences listed above.
Rejection by the Trial Court and the Petitioner's Case Before the High Court
The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 before the trial court. The trial court rejected it on two grounds: first, that a prima facie case had been made out warranting investigation; and second, that the bar contained in Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 applied.
Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the victim and her friends had approached the petitioner to purchase tickets to watch films at his theatre. He contended that the victim was blackmailing the petitioner to extract gold, money, and a transfer of his immovable property, and that when the petitioner resisted these demands, a false complaint was filed against him.
The High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Wahheeda M.M., appearing for the State, countered that the allegations were serious and warranted custodial interrogation. She pointed to the specific allegation that the petitioner telephoned the minor victim and solicited her to sleep with him. She submitted that the victim was a minor, making out offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, and that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste, attracting Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rahana Jalal v. State of Kerala, reported in 2021(1) SCC 733, for the proposition that a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable where prima facie evidence exists in cases covered by the SC/ST (POA) Act.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Nataraj took note of the age gap between the petitioner and the victim: the petitioner is 52 years old, while the victim was a school-going student in Class 9. The court observed that the victim had alleged inappropriate touching and stalking, and had lodged a complaint about this conduct before the incident of 14 March 2026.
The court found that the petitioner, apparently angered by the earlier complaint, had escalated his conduct by sending boys to the victim's house who threatened her with murder and acid attack. The court also took into account the telephonic solicitation alleged by the victim.
On the legal question, the court accepted the State's submission. It held that there was prima facie material against the petitioner. Given Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 — which bars the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under that Act — and the Supreme Court's ruling in Rahana Jalal, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The petition was accordingly rejected.
Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 expressly excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (and its BNSS equivalent) to persons accused of offences under that Act. The Supreme Court in Rahana Jalal affirmed that this bar operates where prima facie evidence of the offence exists.
Direction to the Trial Court
While rejecting the petition, Justice Nataraj added a direction for the petitioner's benefit at the regular bail stage. The court stated that if the petitioner appears before the trial court and files an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, the trial court is requested to consider that application as far as possible on the same day and pass appropriate orders.
Outcome
Criminal Petition No. 7025 of 2026 was rejected by the High Court of Karnataka on 26 May 2026. The anticipatory bail sought by Manjunatha N under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 was denied. The trial court was directed to hear any application under Section 483 of the BNSS filed by the petitioner on the same day it is presented, and to pass appropriate orders.