Prima facie murder materials and the offence’s gravity justified denial of bail.

Gundlupete Police registered a case against an unknown accused following a complaint by Vanaja concerning the death of Devaraju.

The appellant was arrested on 25 February 2025, and the police later filed a charge sheet against him under Sections 103 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 3(2)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, rejected the appellant’s bail application on 7 August 2025.

He appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The High Court noted that the trial court had recorded the evidence of eight witnesses; the complainant had testified, and PW2 and PW4, described as eyewitnesses, supported the prosecution case

1. Whether the trial court’s order rejecting bail disclosed a legal or factual error warranting appellate interference under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

2. Whether the materials before the Court, considered alongside the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, justified granting bail to the appellant

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the rejection of bail

The prosecution had charged the appellant under Sections 103 and 238 of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) and (va) of the SC/ST Act

The Court assessed the bail challenge by considering whether the record disclosed prima facie material for the alleged offence, the seriousness and potential punishment of the offences, and the trial court’s treatment of the material on record

The Court considered the charge-sheet narrative, the evidence recorded to date, and the nature of the alleged offences.

It found prima facie material to constitute the offence under Section 103 BNS and noted that the offences were heinous, triable by the Sessions Court, and punishable with imprisonment for life or death

In light of the complainant’s evidence, the support of PW2 and PW4, and the fact that eight witnesses had already been examined, the Court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s assessment.

It therefore declined to interfere, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case

The appeal was dismissed, and bail was not granted