- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 413 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MOHAMAD MUSTAF @ AUTO MOHAMAD, S/O. SADIK PASHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A. UMARSABRAPALYA, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDUR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SRI. NATARAJU S/O. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, BISAVANAHALLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 163 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 V/O DT.3/7/25, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 - H/S) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.NO.774/2024 DATED 10.10.2024 AND GRANT OF BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN CR.NO.258/2020 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 413 of 2025 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(V)(A) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.1/2021. 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 being accused No.4 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.258/2020 of Kudur Police Station, pending before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Nataraja. 2. Heard Sri. Harish N.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P 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: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 413 of 2025 “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: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the prosecution that the deceased Lakshmipathi was in love with one Ambrin Banu-CW- 17. Both of them wanted to marry. But there was a stiff opposition from the family members of CW.17. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being the father and uncle of CW.17 and accused No.3 being the relative were opposing the marriage. In-spite of their advise, CW.17 and the deceased have continued their relationship which was the motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly on 16.10.2020 at 8 a.m. accused Nos.2 and 3 went to the house of the deceased pretending that they will arrange his marriage with CW.17, took him to a Bar and Restaurant, and allowed him to consume liquor. Later, they took him in an autorikshaw to Kanakenahalli village, assaulted him. It is the contention of the prosecution that while accused Nos.2 and 4 were holding the hands and legs of the deceased, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 413 of 2025 accused Nos.1 and 3 strangulated him with a belt and assaulted on his head with a stone, which resulted in his death. 5. The appellant being accused No.4 was arrested on 18.02.2020. He had approached this Court by preferring Crl.A.No.348/2023. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits considering the seriousness of the offence and also the fact that there is threat to the life of CW.1, if the appellant is enlarged on bail. However, liberty was reserved with the appellant to file a fresh petition, if CW.1 is not secured by the prosecution and not examined before the Trial Court within a period of four months. 6. Now admittedly, CW.1 is examined as PW.6 and the trial has already begun. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the appeal. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM: CT:VS: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28