- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21474 CRL.A No. 485 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SHANTHAKUMAR ALIAS SHANTHA, S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT YASHWANTHPURA, NEAR MATHIKERE MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 054 ALSO AT BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE, HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 120 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. N. ROOPA FOR SRI. N SRIDHAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI. KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI. GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KULINANJAIAHNAPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 120 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. MURALIDHARA .P., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.271/2024 PASSED BY THE III Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21474 CRL.A No. 485 of 2025 ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL ENLARGING THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.271/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 120(B), 109, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 IN CR.NO.67/2024 FILED BY THE KUNIGAL POLICE. 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.1 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.67/2024 of Kunigal Police Station, Tumakuru, pending before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.Case.No.271/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 109, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & SCT (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Hemalatha. 2. Heard Smt. Roopa, learned counsel for Sri. N. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rashmi - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21474 CRL.A No. 485 of 2025 Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State and Sri. Muralidhara P, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 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 4 have caused the death of the deceased by using deadly weapons i.e., knife and long. It is stated that the weapons were recovered at the instance of co-accused and the blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the present appellant. Even though there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, the prosecution is placing reliance on the circumstantial evidence such as, recovery of the incriminating materials at the instance of the appellant and the statements of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21474 CRL.A No. 485 of 2025 witnesses who have last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. It is stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-R1 - copy of the complaint filed by the mother of the complainant against accused No.4 on 30.04.2025 alleging that, accused No.4 came and picked up quarrel with her as she has deposed before the Trial Court against the accused. He has also produced Annexure-R3 - copy of the complaint dated 02.05.2025 by the daughter of the complainant against accused No.4 and her daughter for having abused and assaulted her and also criminally intimidating her not to support the case before the Trial Court. 6. The materials on record disclose that, the FIR in Crime No.209/2025 was registered by Kunigal Police against accused No.4 and her daughter for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of BNS. If these materials are taken into consideration, the apprehension expressed by the respondents that the appellant being the main accused, if enlarged on bail, it may lead to life threat to the informant and her family members. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21474 CRL.A No. 485 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that he is seeking grant of bail on medical grounds. The report from the Chief Superintendent, District Prison, Tumakuru was called for along with the medical reports. The medical reports submitted to this Court disclose that the appellant is not having any ailment and there is no exposed implant as tried to be projected. 8. Considering the nature and seriousness and also the subsequent conduct of the co-accused, who are enlarged on bail, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail, even on medical grounds. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20