Karnataka High Court
Sri.Sathya Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
CRL.A No. 1011 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. 1011 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
SRI. SATHYA KUMAR
S/O VELUKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.13, KASTURI BHAI NAGAR
K.G.HALLI, NEAR ARABIC COLLEGE
BENGALURU-560 045
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, M SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AJEETH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION
Digitally REPRESENTED BY SPP
signed by
SWAPNA V HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
Location: BENGALURU-560 001
High Court of
Karnataka
2. SMT. ROOPA V
W/O G. VENKATESH @ KULLA VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.244, 3RD MAIN
2ND CROSS, BOVI COLONY
RAMA MURTHY NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 016
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. PRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION TO
RELEASE/ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.257/2021 REGISTERED BY
AVALAHALLI P.S., (ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 302, 149,
148,147,143,120-B AND 341 OF IPC AND U/S.3(1)(R)(s) OF
THE SC/ST (POA) ACT 2014.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused No.2 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.257/2021 of Avalahally Police Station, Bengaluru, pending
before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 148, 147,
143, 120-B and 341 of IPC, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(r)(s)
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment ordinance Act, 2014, on the
basis of the first information lodged by informant-Roopa. V.
2. Heard Sri Aruna Shyam M., learned Senior
Advocate for Sri. Ajeeth, learned counsel for the appellant,
Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent
No.1-State and Sri. B.S.Prasada, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
submitted that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.2. He
was apprehended on 29.09.2021 and since then, he is in
judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against five
persons. However, while filing the charge sheet, the names of
all those five persons were dropped and it was filed against
accused Nos. 1 to 8, who were never named in the first
information.
4. It is contended that CW-4 is the sole eye-witness to
the incident. His statement was recorded on 29.09.2021. Even
though the incident had occurred on 25.09.2021. CW-4 in his
statement makes it very clear that none of the assailants were
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
known to him, rather they are all strangers. Inspite of that, no
test identification parade was conducted. He further submits
that even though CW-3 is cited as eye-witness, his statement
and further statement discloses that he was never the
eye-witness to the incident. He came to the spot after the
incident and came to know about the same from the persons
who were present at the spot.
5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant further
submits that the co-accused were granted bail by this Court on
the ground of delay in holding trial. Even though the charge
sheet was filed long back and the charge came to be framed,
still the matter is at the stage of fixing the date for trial. There
are as many as 50 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Their
examination will take sufficiently longer period. The appellant is
not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays to
allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent
No.1 opposing the appeal submitted that this appellant is the
main accused along with accused No.1, who inflicted fatal
injuries on the deceased by assaulting with a long. The blood
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the appellant.
The CCTV footage from the bar, situated near the scene of
occurrence was recovered. As such the identification of the
assailants was made easy. Therefore, no test identification
parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The
recovery mahazar pertaining to CCTV footage and the CCTV
footage collected by the Investigating Officer forms part of the
charge sheet. Accused No.1, who is the main accused, is still in
custody along with the present appellant. Considering the
nature and seriousness of the offence, the appellant is not
entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. 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:
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
REASONS
8. On perusal of the materials on record, the
allegation made against the accused in general and against the
appellant in particular, is gruesome. Specific allegations are
made against the present appellant as well as the co-accused
that they have assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons,
inflicted fatal injuries and caused his death. As per the charge
sheet, CCTV footage was recovered from the scene of
occurrence. At present non-conducting of test identification
parade by the Investigating Officer may not be fatal to the case
of the prosecution, as the prosecution relies on CCTV footage
referred to above. However, it is to be noticed that the
weapons said to have been used in commission of the offence,
were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4.
Only blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of
the present appellant.
9. The overt act alleged against the present appellant
and materials that are placed before the Court, prima facie
discloses commission of serious offence. However, it is brought
to the notice of the Court that the charge was framed long back
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
and still the date for trial is not fixed by the Trial Court. As per
the final report, 50 witnesses are cited by the Investigating
Officer.
10. It also brought to the notice of the Court that all the
other accused except accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 against whom similar allegations are
made, are enlarged on bail, taking into consideration the delay
in conducting the trial. Therefore, the claim of the appellant for
grant of bail cannot be rejected, when similarly placed accused
Nos.3 and 4 are enlarged on bail subject to conditions.
11. 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. Accordingly, I answer the
above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
The appellant / accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on
bail in Crime No.257/2021 of Avalahally Police Station,
Bengaluru, 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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21627
HC-KAR
Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for
the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
AM
