Karnataka High Court
Rohith vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20132
CRL.A No. 39 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
ROHITH,
S/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 120
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAGADI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SMT. POORVIKA,
Digitally signed W/O MARUTHI,
by SWAPNA V
Location: High
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
Court of RESIDENT OF SIDDANAHOSAHALLI,
Karnataka VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 162
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SD)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.NO.969/2024 DISMISSING
CRL.MISC.PETITION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND GRANT BAIL TO
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20132
CRL.A No. 39 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.213/2024 OF MAGADI POLICE FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 61(2), 103(1), 238 OF BNS AND U/S.3(2)(V) OF
SC/ST ACT 2015 NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IST
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN
SPL.C.NO.164/2024.
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.5 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in Crime
No.213/2024 of Magadi Police Station, pending before the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in
Crl.Misc.No.969/2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(for short 'BNS'), 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act on the
basis of the first information lodged by informant-Poorvika.
2. Heard Sri. A.N.Radha Krishna, learned Counsel for
the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the
materials on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:20132
HC-KAR
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-accused No.5 is
entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. It is the contention of the prosecution that FIR
came to be registered on the basis of first information lodged
by the first informant for the offences punishable under
Sections 103(1), 238 of BNS, 2023. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were
apprehended during investigation and the charge sheet came to
be filed. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet, it was
accused Nos.1 to 4, who have committed the overt-act and
caused the death of deceased Lalitha @ Divya by strangulating
her neck with towel. The overt-act alleged against the present
appellant is that, he was having a watch and ward at a distance
to guard any third party coming to the scene of occurrence.
NC: 2025:KHC:20132
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, against whom serious allegations are
made were granted bail by the Trial Court.
6. The appellant was apprehended on 13.08.2024, and
since then he is in judicial custody. It is not the contention of
the prosecution that he is required for further investigation, or
that he is having any criminal antecedents. Under such
circumstances, his detention in custody would amount to pre-
trial punishment. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the
appellant may be granted bail, subject to conditions which will
take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest
of the complainant and the witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime
No.213/2024 of Magadi Police Station, on obtaining the bond in
a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two
sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court, subject to the following conditions:
NC: 2025:KHC:20132
HC-KAR
a). The appellant shall not commit similar
offences.
b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The appellant shall appear before the Court
as and when required.
If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as
stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the
Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial
Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify
the correctness of the address and authenticity of the
documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a
report may be called for in that regard, which is to be
submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial
Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for
the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
