Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23658 CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SHANTHARAJU @ SHANTHA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAILAMANGALA CROSS, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112 (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) (BY SRI. S.B. SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, BIDADI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA RURAL CIRCLE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109 REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01.
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT. SHARADA V., W/O KUMAR, RESIDING AT MUTHURAYANAGUDIPALYA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 109. (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23658 CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024 HC-KAR THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.NO.260/2024 AND TO DIRECT HIS RELEASE ON BAIL IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.69/2021 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CR.NO.158 OF 2024 OF BIDADI P.S., FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 212 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 13(2)(V) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015. 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.3 is 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 Act’ for short) in Crime No.158/2021 of Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara, pending before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Spl.Case(SC/ST) No.69/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 212 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Smt. Sharada. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23658 CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024 HC-KAR 2. Heard Sri. S.B. Suman, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader 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 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 6 conspired together to cause the death of the deceased, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object, armed with deadly weapons, waylaid the deceased - Kumar.V. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 were armed with knifes and they stabbed the deceased. Immediately he started running away from them. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 have chased him to the liquor shop, and assaulted him with - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23658 CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024 HC-KAR deadly weapons inflicting fatal injuries, as a result of which, he died. It is stated that the deceased is a member of Scheduled Caste and accused Nos. 3 to 6 are from upper caste. Therefore, it is stated that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 212 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.3 and he is in custody since 10.05.2021. There is no progress made in the trial before the Trial Court. Long incarceration of the appellant entitles him for grant of bail. He also contends that, accused Nos. 2 and the appellant herein stand on similar footing. Since accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail, this appellant is also entitled to grant of bail. 6. On consideration of materials on record, it is seen that it was this accused along with accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 had chased the deceased and inflicted fatal injuries. As per the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, there are five eye-witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, prosecution is relying on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23658 CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024 HC-KAR CCTV footage recovered by the Investigating Officer. Specific case is made out against this appellant that, he being accused No.3 dragged the deceased out of liquor shop and inflicted fatal injuries. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the order dated 10.11.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.1303/2023 c/w Crl.A.No.125/2023, where accused Nos. 6 and 2 respectively have sought for grant of bail. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the claim of accused No.6 by observing that, specific overt act is alleged against accused No.6 and he is not entitled to grant of bail, while admitting accused No.2 to bail by recording a finding that as per the statement of witness, by name Venkataramu, accused Nos. 2 and 5 were standing near the car and they have not inflicted any fatal injuries to the deceased. Under such circumstances, releasing of accused No.2 on bail cannot be the ground to enlarge accused No.3 on bail by applying the principals of parity. On the other hand, there are sufficient prima facie materials to hold that it was accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 who have inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased after chasing him. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23658 CRL.A No. 1307 of 2024 HC-KAR 8. It is stated that PWs.1 to 3 were examined before the Trial Court. Thereafter there is no further progress in the matter and on that ground the appellant is seeking grant of bail. But no further details are forthcoming either in the memorandum of appeal or in any documents produced to show that there is inordinate delay in trial. Admittedly, the trial before the Trial Court has already began, and three witnesses are already examined. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
The appeal is dismissed. ORDER Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27