- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24995 CRL.A No. 1100 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHESH GOWDA @ S. MAHESH S/O SOORAPPA .J AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT. HOUSE NO.11, 2ND MAIN, MYSORE LAMP LAYOUT, 8TH MILE, BENGALURU - 560 056 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESH CHANDRA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANIKANTA H.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT WOMEN PS REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001 2. AISHWARYA S. HOUNSANUR, D/O SHESHAPPA HOUNSANUR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT ATHREYA AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, HOMESTAY, PG, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF GANDHINAGAR, GADAG TOWN - 582 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. BHASKAR GOWDA N.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24995 CRL.A No. 1100 of 2025 THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND PASS AN ORDER ENLARGING THE APPELLANT ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED UNDER SEC.3(5), 64, 87, 351(2) OF BNS ACT 2023 AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT REGISTERED UNDER CRIME (FIR)NO.21/2025, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT WOMEN P.S. AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 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.21/2025 of Doddaballapura Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 64, 87, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Kumari Aishwarya S Hounsanur. 2. Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra.B.N, learned counsel for Sri. Manikanta.H.B, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24995 CRL.A No. 1100 of 2025 Sri. Bhaskar Gowda.N.M, 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. The victim aged 20 years filed the first information with Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Women Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that accused No.1 came in contact with her through social media and on 25.01.2025, he called her at 7.30 pm and invited for dinner. The victim had gone near the college but refused to go for dinner. Accused No.2 had accompanied accused No.1 at that time. Accused No.1 forcibly committed rape on the victim in the car and criminally intimidated her not to reveal this fact to any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24995 CRL.A No. 1100 of 2025 other person. Later, accused No.1 went away, informing accused No.2 that he has booked a room in a hotel and accordingly, accused No.2 took the victim to the hotel room, where he committed rape. On 26.01.2025, accused No.2 left the victim near the bus stop and went away. This fact was informed by the victim to her sister on 05.02.2025 and the first information came to be filed on 10.02.2025. 5. The allegations made against the appellant is of serious nature. Even though he was apprehended on 11.02.2025, admittedly, the investigation is not yet completed and charge sheet is not filed. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification to enlarge the appellant on bail. 6. 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 CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24