Karnataka High Court
Sujay Bhargav @ Suji vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
CRL.A No. 624 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SUJAY BHARGAV @ SUJI
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VENAKTESHWARA
NILAYA, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
KUVEMPU NAGARA,
HANUMANTHAPURA
TUMKUR - 572 103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUDHANVA D.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY H.C.G.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 001.
by SWAPNA V
Location: High
Court of 2. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
Karnataka S/O LATE PUTTANARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
A D BY CASTE, R/AT 5TH CROSS,
NEAR SAMUDHAYABHAVAN,
HOSALLAIAHNA THOTA, BATAVADI,
TUMKURU - 572 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP 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 11.06.2024 IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
CRL.A No. 624 of 2025
HC-KAR
SPL.C.NO.444/2019 ARISING OUT IN CRIME NO.222/2018 PASSED
BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.NO.444/2019 ARISING OUT IN CRIME NO.222/2018
REGISTERED BY KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 212, 302, 201 R/W SEC.149
OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND U/S.3(1)(I),
(2)(3) AND (4) OF KARANATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIME
ACT 2000 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
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 being accused No.1 is before this Court
seeking grant of bail under Section 14(A)(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.222/2018 of Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumakuru
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 120-B, 212, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC, under
Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and under Sections 3(1)(i),
3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organization Crime
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
HC-KAR
Act, 2000 (for short, 'the KCOC Act'), on the basis of the first
information lodged by informant-Krishnamurthy.
2. Heard Sri.Sudhanva D.S., learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P. 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 14(A)(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. The charge sheet came to be filed against accused
Nos.1 to 12 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 120-B, 212, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC, under
Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and under Sections 3(1)(i),
3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the KCOC Act. It is the specific contention of
the prosecution that accused No.1 and the deceased were
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
HC-KAR
having real estate business and they were rowdy sheeters.
There was a business rivalry between the deceased and the
present appellant. It is stated that the deceased was elected as
a Deputy Mayor of Tumkur City Corporation and there was
political rivalry also. The appellant had conspired with the co-
accused to cause the death of the deceased. As such, on the
date of incident, the accused armed with deadly weapons,
assaulted the deceased and inflicted fatal injuries, as a result,
he died.
5. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that this
appellant had conspired with accused Nos.2 to 4, 8 to 11 before
causing the death of the deceased. The appellant was
apprehended on 03.10.2018. He has led to the recovery of two
longs, one dragger and bloodstained clothes. There are
eyewitnesses to the incident as per the case made out by the
prosecution.
6. It is stated that as many as 19 witnesses out of 225
witnesses cited in the charge sheet, are examined and none of
the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
HC-KAR
It is also stated that even the witnesses to the recovery
mahazar have also not supported the case of the prosecution.
7. It is brought to the notice of the Court that CW.3-
one of the eyewitnesses to the incident was murdered on
02.12.2020. However, the co-accused against whom similar
allegations are made especially accused No.2 who is one of the
accused along with the appellant in S.C.No.72/2021 for having
murdered CW.3, are already been acquitted and accused No.3
is released on bail in the present case.
8. It is stated that the appellant is having criminal
antecedents. But the order granting bail to accused No.3
discloses that, even he had criminal antecedents and that the
Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail in his favour.
Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
appellant is also entitled for grant of bail under the principles of
parity, subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest
of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and
the witnesses.
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
HC-KAR
9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The appellant-accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on
bail in Crime No.222/2018 of Kyathasandra Police Station,
Tumkuru, 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:
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21700
HC-KAR
the correctness of the addresses 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
MKM
