Dismissed¶45

Karthik N v. State by Srirangapatna Rural Police

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2025CRL.A/1006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail — s.14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — appeal by accused No.2 — Karnataka HC — anticipatory bail earlier granted — absconded during trial — apprehended 25.09.2024 — split-up charge sheet — separate special case Spl.C.No.275/2023 — hostile witnesses in original Spl.C.No.119/2017 — other accused already acquitted — conduct disentitles bail — trial in custody, to be concluded expeditiously — offences ss.341, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and s.3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 — appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The point framed is answered in the negative: the appellant-accused No.2 is not entitled to grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ¶43

Karthik N Vs State by Srirangapatna Rural Police — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19182 CRL.A No. 1006 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2025 (U/S 14(A) (2)-)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARTHIK N, (A-2), S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/OF NAGUVANAHALLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 438

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL POLICE REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

MOHAN K, S/O. LATE KANTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O MELAPURA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 438

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R1 R2 - SD)

¶19

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 07.04.2025 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA, IN SPL.C.NO.275/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.134/2017 OF SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL POLICE AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL, FOR

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:19182 CRL.A No. 1006 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, U/S 3(1)(S) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.

¶24

THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant being 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.134/2017 of Srirangapatna Rural Police Station, pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, in Spl.C.No.275/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/w. 34 of IPC and U/s. 3(1)(S) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 on the basis of the first information lodged by informantSri.Mohan.

¶28

Heard Sri Nagaraj K.G., learned counsel for appellant-accused No.2 and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19182 CRL.A No. 1006 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶32

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

“Whether the appellant-accused No.2 is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the

¶35

following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

The only ground urged by the appellant-accused

¶38

No.2 is that, in the original Spl.Case.No.119/2017, the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and therefore, the appellant is entitled for grant of bail.

¶39

It is noticed that the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 4. Even though the appellant was granted anticipatory bail, and he was participated in the trial for some time, later he remained absent and was absconded. He was apprehended only on 25.09.2024, whereas, the date of offence is dated 02.05.2017. As the appellant remained absconding, a split up charge sheet came to be filed and

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19182 CRL.A No. 1006 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

separate special case was registered against him. The conduct of appellant-accused No.2 disentitles him from seeking grant of bail as it hampers the trial before the Trial Court once again. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appellant-accused No.2 is required to face the trial before the Trial Court while he is in custody. The Trial Court is required to conclude the trial expeditiously taking into consideration that the appellantaccused No.2 is in custody and the other accused are already acquitted.

¶43