Karnataka High Court
Nagendra Kumar. N. A @ Naga vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23212
CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1052 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
NAGENDRA KUMAR .N.A @ NAGA
S/O. ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT. NAGARAGERE VILLAGE
NAGARAGERE HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST - 561 228
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: ABHISHEK HUDDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P OFFICE
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by BENGALURU - 560 001
NANDINI B G
Location:
High Court of 2. SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY
Karnataka S/O. V. SHIVARAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT. HERENAGAVALLI VILLAGE
THORENAGASANDRA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 104
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 - SD)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF
SC AND ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGEMENT ON BAIL WITH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23212
CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025
HC-KAR
OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN
CRIME NO.99/2024, NUMBERED AS SPL.C NO.336/2024,
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MADANAYAKANAHALLI
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
364, 302, 120B, 109, 201, 204 READ WITH 34 IPC AND SECTION 3
(2)(V) SC/ ST ACT, 1989, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 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.99 of 2024 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, pending in
Spl.C.No.336 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 364, 302, 120-B, 109, 201, 204 read with Section 34
of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, on the basis of
the first information lodged by informant - Manjunatha Reddy.
NC: 2025:KHC:23212
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri Abhishek Huddar, learned Counsel for the
appellants and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the 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 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. It is the contention of the prosecution that the
deceased was working as lorry driver under the informant -
respondent No.2. He is said to have harassed accused No.4
and accused No.4 in turn informed the same to accused No.1.
Accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 conspired to kill
the deceased, as a result of which, accused No.1 and 2 have
forcibly taken the deceased in an autorickshaw and accused
No.1 inflicted fatal injury on the throat of the deceased, as a
NC: 2025:KHC:23212
HC-KAR
result, he died. As per the postmortem report, death was due
to slit throat caused on the neck, which is attributable to
accused No.1. It is stated that, it was accused No.1 who
inflicted fatal injury on the deceased with the knife. As per the
charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, accused Nos.1
and 2 are the main accused who caused death of the deceased.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted
that the galata was recorded in the mobile hand set of CW24,
who had called the deceased at the time of incident. CCTV
footage was recovered by the Investigating Officer, wherein the
deceased was found begging for mercy with accused No.1. He
also submits that accused No.3, the wife of accused No.2 had
recorded the entire incident in the mobile hand set belonging to
accused No.2, but subsequently accused No.2 had deleted the
same. But nonetheless, the video was retrieved by the
Investigating Officer which is available as part of the charge
sheet.
6. From these materials on record, it is the contention
of the prosecution that it was accused Nos.1 and 2 who have
dragged the deceased in an autorickshaw to the scene of
NC: 2025:KHC:23212
HC-KAR
occurrence and caused his death by inflicting the fatal injuries.
According to the case made out by the prosecution, it is this
appellant who is the author of the crime who inflicted slit throat
injury on the deceased with knife. The blood stained clothes,
knife and mobile handset were recovered at the instance of the
appellant. When such clinching materials are available, I am of
the opinion that the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail after
examination of material witnesses.
8. In view of the above, I answer the above point in
the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Liberty as sought for is granted.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
*bgn/-
