G.R. Bhargava Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

G.R. BHARGAVA REDDY, S/O. RAVICHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, TCS COMPANY, WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU - 560 001 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KEREKONDAPURA VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH RAMPURA POLICE, RAMPURA, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.596/2025 (CR.NO.62/2025) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COURT OF SPL.2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRAUDRGA AND 2. ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.62/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RAMPURA POLICE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23275 CRL.A No. 1349 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MOLKALMURU CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEJC.108 OF BNS 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED SPL.2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant - accused is before this Court seeking grant

¶25

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.62/2025 of Rampura Police Station, Chitradurga, pending before the learned Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Venkatesha.

¶26

Heard Sri Mahesh R Uppin, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23275 CRL.A No. 1349 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The appellant is the sole accused. He was

¶36

apprehended on 14.05.2025 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, the deceased, aged 25 years was in love with the appellant and since, she was belonging to Scheduled Caste, the appellant refused to marry her and abetted her to commit suicide. As a result of which, she committed suicide by hanging in her house. It is not the contention of the prosecution that, the appellant is required for further investigation. It is also not the contention

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23275 CRL.A No. 1349 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

of the prosecution that the appellant is having any criminal antecedents. 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.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal is allowed.

¶43

The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.62/2025 of Rampura Police Station, Chitradurga 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:

¶44

a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:23275 CRL.A No. 1349 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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.

¶51

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 Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the appellant on bail.

¶52

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶53

SPV

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

G.R. Bhargava Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.R. Bhargava Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prasad B @ Kunhzi Vs State Ofkarnataka

Sri. Ravindra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Central Diocese Vs Mr J C Sampath Kumar

Sri H Suresh Vs the State by Police Inspector

Varun Yadav J Vs State of Karnataka

R. Venkatachalaiah Vs State of Karnataka