- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23212 CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025 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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI. MANJUNATH REDDY 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 Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23212 CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025 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. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23212 CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025 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: R E A S O N S 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23212 CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23212 CRL.A No. 1052 of 2025 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/- CT:VS: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6