Karnataka High Court
Shantharaju @ Shantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23658
CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SHANTHARAJU @ SHANTHA,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BAILAMANGALA
CROSS, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMNAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112
(IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.B. SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
BIDADI POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA RURAL CIRCLE,
Digitally
signed by RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109
SWAPNA V REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
High Court BANGALORE - 01.
of Karnataka
2. SMT. SHARADA V.,
W/O KUMAR,
RESIDING AT
MUTHURAYANAGUDIPALYA,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA
TALUK - 562 109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SD)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23658
CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2024 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.NO.260/2024 AND TO DIRECT HIS
RELEASE ON BAIL IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.69/2021 PENDING IN THE
COURT OF THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
IN CR.NO.158 OF 2024 OF BIDADI P.S., FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 143,
147, 148, 302, 120B, 212 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 13(2)(V)
OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015.
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused No.3 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act' for short) in Crime
No.158/2021 of Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara, pending
before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara, in Spl.Case(SC/ST) No.69/2021 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B,
212 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 on the basis of the first information
lodged by informant - Smt. Sharada.
NC: 2025:KHC:23658
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. S.B. Suman, learned Counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the
materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant is entitled for grant
of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused
Nos.1 to 6 conspired together to cause the death of the
deceased, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in
furtherance of common object, armed with deadly weapons,
waylaid the deceased - Kumar.V. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 were
armed with knifes and they stabbed the deceased. Immediately
he started running away from them. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6
have chased him to the liquor shop, and assaulted him with
NC: 2025:KHC:23658
HC-KAR
deadly weapons inflicting fatal injuries, as a result of which, he
died. It is stated that the deceased is a member of Scheduled
Caste and accused Nos. 3 to 6 are from upper caste. Therefore,
it is stated that the accused have committed the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 212 read
with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3 and he is in custody
since 10.05.2021. There is no progress made in the trial before
the Trial Court. Long incarceration of the appellant entitles him
for grant of bail. He also contends that, accused Nos. 2 and the
appellant herein stand on similar footing. Since accused No.2 is
already enlarged on bail, this appellant is also entitled to grant
of bail.
6. On consideration of materials on record, it is seen
that it was this accused along with accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 had
chased the deceased and inflicted fatal injuries. As per the
charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, there are five
eye-witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the
Investigating Officer. Moreover, prosecution is relying on the
NC: 2025:KHC:23658
HC-KAR
CCTV footage recovered by the Investigating Officer. Specific
case is made out against this appellant that, he being accused
No.3 dragged the deceased out of liquor shop and inflicted fatal
injuries.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the
order dated 10.11.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.1303/2023 c/w
Crl.A.No.125/2023, where accused Nos. 6 and 2 respectively
have sought for grant of bail. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has rejected the claim of accused No.6 by observing that,
specific overt act is alleged against accused No.6 and he is not
entitled to grant of bail, while admitting accused No.2 to bail by
recording a finding that as per the statement of witness, by
name Venkataramu, accused Nos. 2 and 5 were standing near
the car and they have not inflicted any fatal injuries to the
deceased. Under such circumstances, releasing of accused No.2
on bail cannot be the ground to enlarge accused No.3 on bail by
applying the principals of parity. On the other hand, there are
sufficient prima facie materials to hold that it was accused
Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 who have inflicted fatal injuries on the
deceased after chasing him.
NC: 2025:KHC:23658
HC-KAR
8. It is stated that PWs.1 to 3 were examined before
the Trial Court. Thereafter there is no further progress in the
matter and on that ground the appellant is seeking grant of
bail. But no further details are forthcoming either in the
memorandum of appeal or in any documents produced to show
that there is inordinate delay in trial. Admittedly, the trial
before the Trial Court has already began, and three witnesses
are already examined. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the
appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.
9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
CT:VS
