Dismissed¶45

Prakash @ Richard Lobo v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2025CRL.A/1183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M G Uma, J., 14.07.2025), CRL.A No. 1183 of 2024 — bail refusal under S.14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act upheld; appeal dismissed. Accused Prakash @ Richard Lobo, sole accused in Crime No.68/2023, Sringeri PS (Ss.302, 201 IPC; S.3(2)(v) SC/ST Act), custody since 22.08.2023, Spl.C.No.132/2023, Chikkamagaluru; trial commenced, several witnesses examined; illness-of-mother plea unsupported; offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The Court answered the framed point in the negative: the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ¶35

Prakash @ Richard Lobo Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25816 CRL.A No. 1183 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1183 OF 2024 (U/S 14(A) (2))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRAKASH @ RICHARD LOBO, S/O JOHN LOBO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, COOLIE, R/AT. INDIRAGANDHI BADAVANE, KALLUDODDI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577101

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. PUTTASWAMY .J., ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. VANITHA DEVI .V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRINGERI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001

¶17

NAVEEN N.Y., S/O LATE NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT HOSKERE SITE, NEMMURU VILLAGE, SRINGERI TALUK

¶18

(R2 AMENDED V/O DATED:28.08.2024)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP

¶21

R2 - SD)

¶22

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2024 PASSED BY

¶23

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25816 CRL.A No. 1183 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THE 1^ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, IN SPL.C.NO.132/2023 AND ENLARGE THE ACCUSED ON BAIL IN (CR.NO.68/2023) P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(V) SC AND ST (POA) ATROCITIES ACT, 2015 OF SRINGERI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFOR 1^ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

The appellant - accused 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.68/2023 of Sringeri Police Station, pending in Spl.Case.No.132/2023 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Bharmappa Belagali.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25816 CRL.A No. 1183 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Heard Sri Puttaswamy.J, learned counsel for Smt. Vanitha Devi.V, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶34

“Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?”

¶35

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

The appellant being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 22.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. As per the charge sheet, he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 501 of

¶38

IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is stated that many of the witnesses are already examined before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant is not aware as to

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25816 CRL.A No. 1183 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

how many witnesses are examined and what is stage before the Trial Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, since the mother of the appellant is seriously ill, he is seeking grant of bail. But, no scrap of paper is produced in support of such contention. When admittedly, the trial has already begun before the Trial Court, I do not find any reason to grant relief in favour of the appellant who is accused of committing the offences which is punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification to enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶43

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The appeal is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶47

SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Prakash @ Richard Lobo v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash @ Richard Lobo v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govinda Bovi Vs State by Karnataka by

Narayanappa @ Narayanaswamy Vs State by R T Nagar

Shri H Gangadhara Vs the State Represented by

Mrs.Ranjitha M .J. Vs Mr.Manjunath

G N Amara Narayana Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Shamim Vs State by Madanayakanahally P S