Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesh vs State Of Karnataka By on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
CRL.A No. 2356 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1916 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2356 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1916 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))
IN CRL.A No. 2356/2024
BETWEEN:
1. HEMANTH
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT DODDABYALAGONDAPALLI VILLAGE,
DENKANIKOTE TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU-635 107.
2. MURUGESH
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT ALASATTI VILLAGE,
DENKANIKOTE TALUK,
Digitally signed KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
by SWAPNA V TAMIL NADU-635 107.
Location: High (BOTH ARE IN J.C)
Court of
Karnataka ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SURYANAGAR P.S,
BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU -560001
2. PADMARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
CRL.A No. 2356 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1916 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT MARSOOR VILLAGE,
INDIRANAGARA,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.342/2024
ON 09.08.20242 AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.109/2024 REGISTERED BY SURYANAGAR P.S. BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDE SECTIONS 302, 201, 120(B),
109, 143, 144 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3 2(Va) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.342/2024.
IN CRL.A NO. 1916/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH
S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBALI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. N. PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
REP: BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
CRL.A No. 2356 of 2024
C/W CRL.A No. 1916 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SRI. PADMARAJU
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
MARASOOR VILLAGE,
INDIRANAGAR KASABA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
DATED 05.10.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.342/2024 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE
APPELLANT IN CR.NO.109/2024 OF THE SURYANAGAR POLICE
ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT, NOW PENDING
SPL.C.NO.342/2024 OF THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B,
109, 143, 144, 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(VA) OF SC AND ST
ATROCITIES ACT, 1989, BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITION OR
CONDITIONS AS THE HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant - accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.1916/2024 and
the appellants - accused Nos. 6 and 7 in Crl.A.No.2356/2024
are 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
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
HC-KAR
Act' for short) in Crime No.109/2024 of Suryanagar Police
Station, Bengaluru, pending before the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru in Spl.Case.No.342/2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 109, 143,
144, 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST Act, on
the basis of the first information lodged by informant-
Padmaraju.
2. Heard Sri. Manjunath M.R. learned counsel for the
appellants in Crl.A.No.2356/2024, Smt. N Padmavathi, learned
counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1916/2024 and Smt.
Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP 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 appellants are 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:
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
HC-KAR
REASONS
4. The appellants are accused Nos. 3, 6 and 7. It is
stated that they were apprehended on 29.02.2024 and since
then, they are in judicial custody. Initially, the father of the
deceased lodged the first information against accused No.1 and
others. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused
No.1 is the brother of one Bablu, who was brutally murdered. It
is stated that, the deceased was the accused in the said murder
case, and with that motive, accused No.1 conspired with the
other accused and caused the death of the deceased. Accused
No.1 secured the deadly weapons i.e., long, chopper, etc., and
asked accused Nos. 3 and 5 to get the deceased to the spot.
Accordingly, they have brought the deceased to the scene of
occurrence. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were having watch and ward.
Accused No.3 caught hold of the deceased, and accused Nos. 1
and 2 have assaulted him 5 to 6 times with the long. In the
meantime, accused No.4 assaulted the deceased with the
chopper. As a result of which, he collapsed at the spot and
died.
5. The allegations against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are
very serious in nature as it is stated that they are the
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
HC-KAR
assailants. It is the allegation against accused No.3 that he was
holding the deceased. It is alleged that accused Nos. 6 and 7
were having watch and ward to prevent any other persons
coming to the spot. Admittedly, these appellants are not the
assailants. Moreover the sole eye-witness by name Srikantha
said to have identified accused No.1 while he was in police
station, but not identified these appellants.
6. As per the charge sheet, the entire incident was
recorded in CCTV camera, and it is stated that the same is part
of the charge sheet. Even according to the case made out by
the prosecution and the charge sheet, these appellants are not
the assailants. It is not the contention of the prosecution that
the appellants are having any criminal antecedents. Therefore,
I am of the opinion, that the appellants 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 appeals are allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
HC-KAR
The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in
Crime No.109/2024 of Suryanagar 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 appellants shall not commit similar
offences.
b). The appellants shall not threaten or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The appellants shall appear before the Court
as and when required.
If in case, the appellants 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 appellants, 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 appellants and the sureties and a
report may be called for in that regard, which is to be
NC: 2025:KHC:22020
HC-KAR
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 appellants on bail.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
