- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1011 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SRI. SATHYA KUMAR S/O VELUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.13, KASTURI BHAI NAGAR K.G.HALLI, NEAR ARABIC COLLEGE BENGALURU-560 045 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, M SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJEETH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. SMT. ROOPA V W/O G. VENKATESH @ KULLA VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.244, 3RD MAIN 2ND CROSS, BOVI COLONY RAMA MURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU-560 016 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. B.S. PRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION TO RELEASE/ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.257/2021 REGISTERED BY AVALAHALLI P.S., (ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 302, 149, 148,147,143,120-B AND 341 OF IPC AND U/S.3(1)(R)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT 2014. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant - accused No.2 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.257/2021 of Avalahally Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 148, 147, 143, 120-B and 341 of IPC, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment ordinance Act, 2014, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Roopa. V. 2. Heard Sri Aruna Shyam M., learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Ajeeth, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State and Sri. B.S.Prasada, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.2. He was apprehended on 29.09.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against five persons. However, while filing the charge sheet, the names of all those five persons were dropped and it was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 8, who were never named in the first information. 4. It is contended that CW-4 is the sole eye-witness to the incident. His statement was recorded on 29.09.2021. Even though the incident had occurred on 25.09.2021. CW-4 in his statement makes it very clear that none of the assailants were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 known to him, rather they are all strangers. Inspite of that, no test identification parade was conducted. He further submits that even though CW-3 is cited as eye-witness, his statement and further statement discloses that he was never the eye-witness to the incident. He came to the spot after the incident and came to know about the same from the persons who were present at the spot. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant further submits that the co-accused were granted bail by this Court on the ground of delay in holding trial. Even though the charge sheet was filed long back and the charge came to be framed, still the matter is at the stage of fixing the date for trial. There are as many as 50 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Their examination will take sufficiently longer period. The appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 opposing the appeal submitted that this appellant is the main accused along with accused No.1, who inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased by assaulting with a long. The blood - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the appellant. The CCTV footage from the bar, situated near the scene of occurrence was recovered. As such the identification of the assailants was made easy. Therefore, no test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The recovery mahazar pertaining to CCTV footage and the CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer forms part of the charge sheet. Accused No.1, who is the main accused, is still in custody along with the present appellant. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. 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 ‘Affirmative’ for the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 R E A S O N S 8. On perusal of the materials on record, the allegation made against the accused in general and against the appellant in particular, is gruesome. Specific allegations are made against the present appellant as well as the co-accused that they have assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons, inflicted fatal injuries and caused his death. As per the charge sheet, CCTV footage was recovered from the scene of occurrence. At present non-conducting of test identification parade by the Investigating Officer may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the prosecution relies on CCTV footage referred to above. However, it is to be noticed that the weapons said to have been used in commission of the offence, were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. Only blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the present appellant. 9. The overt act alleged against the present appellant and materials that are placed before the Court, prima facie discloses commission of serious offence. However, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the charge was framed long back - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 and still the date for trial is not fixed by the Trial Court. As per the final report, 50 witnesses are cited by the Investigating Officer. 10. It also brought to the notice of the Court that all the other accused except accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail. Accused Nos.3 and 4 against whom similar allegations are made, are enlarged on bail, taking into consideration the delay in conducting the trial. Therefore, the claim of the appellant for grant of bail cannot be rejected, when similarly placed accused Nos.3 and 4 are enlarged on bail subject to conditions. 11. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellant 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. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 The appellant / accused No.2 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.257/2021 of Avalahally 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 appellant shall not commit similar offences. b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the appellant 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 appellant, 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 appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21627 CRL.A No. 1011 of 2025 Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18