Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesh Gowda vs State By on 9 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24995
CRL.A No. 1100 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH GOWDA
@ S. MAHESH
S/O SOORAPPA .J
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT. HOUSE NO.11,
2ND MAIN, MYSORE LAMP
LAYOUT, 8TH MILE,
BENGALURU - 560 056
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH CHANDRA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MANIKANTA H.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
WOMEN PS REPRESENTED
BY HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V AT BANGALORE - 560 001
Location: High 2. AISHWARYA S. HOUNSANUR,
Court of
Karnataka D/O SHESHAPPA HOUNSANUR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT ATHREYA AYURVEDIC
COLLEGE, HOMESTAY, PG,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT - 561 203,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
GANDHINAGAR,
GADAG TOWN - 582 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
SRI. BHASKAR GOWDA N.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT))
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24995
CRL.A No. 1100 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND PASS AN ORDER
ENLARGING THE APPELLANT ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED
UNDER SEC.3(5), 64, 87, 351(2) OF BNS ACT 2023 AND SEC.3(2)(V)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT REGISTERED UNDER CRIME (FIR)NO.21/2025,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT WOMEN P.S. AND PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT
DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
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.1 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.21/2025 of Doddaballapura Police Station, Bengaluru,
pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) &
JMFC Court, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 64,
87, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act,
on the basis of the first information lodged by informant -
Kumari Aishwarya S Hounsanur.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra.B.N, learned counsel for
Sri. Manikanta.H.B, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.
Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and
NC: 2025:KHC:24995
HC-KAR
Sri. Bhaskar Gowda.N.M, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
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. The victim aged 20 years filed the first information
with Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Women Police
Station against accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that accused No.1
came in contact with her through social media and on
25.01.2025, he called her at 7.30 pm and invited for dinner.
The victim had gone near the college but refused to go for
dinner. Accused No.2 had accompanied accused No.1 at that
time. Accused No.1 forcibly committed rape on the victim in the
car and criminally intimidated her not to reveal this fact to any
NC: 2025:KHC:24995
HC-KAR
other person. Later, accused No.1 went away, informing
accused No.2 that he has booked a room in a hotel and
accordingly, accused No.2 took the victim to the hotel room,
where he committed rape. On 26.01.2025, accused No.2 left
the victim near the bus stop and went away. This fact was
informed by the victim to her sister on 05.02.2025 and the first
information came to be filed on 10.02.2025.
5. The allegations made against the appellant is of
serious nature. Even though he was apprehended on
11.02.2025, admittedly, the investigation is not yet completed
and charge sheet is not filed. Under such circumstances, I do
not find any justification to enlarge the appellant on bail.
6. 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
