Allowed

Praveena @ Karadi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2021CRL.P/921/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bengaluru enlarged the petitioner on bail in a case under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. The court upheld the ground of parity, rejecting the objection that other accused did not inflict death-causing injuries, noting that all were jointly responsible under Section 149 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on ₹2,00,000 bond with two sureties; subject to conditions including weapon prohibition and police station visits.

Praveena @ Karadi Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.921/2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PRAVEENA @ KARADI, S/O MUNIRAJA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT 15^TH CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR, BEHIND AKSHAYA PATRE GUBBALALA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI RAM SINGH K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 076, REP.BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.NAMEETA, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.31/2019 (S.C.NO.1185/2019) OF MICO LAYOUT P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302 R/W 149 OF I.P.C.

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PERTAINING TO PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Accused No.3 is again before this court seeking bail on the ground of parity, his earlier application for bail in Criminal Petition No.1606/2020 was rejected by this court by order dated 21.07.2020.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶19

The petitioner and other accused have been implicated of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. The respondent police registered an FIR against the accused in Crime No.31/2019. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.

¶20

After rejection of bail to this petitioner, the co-ordinate benches of this court granted bail to accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 by disposing of Criminal Petition

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

Nos.7435/2020, 4772/2020 and 47/2021. Learned Government Pleader takes objection to granting bail on the ground of parity as according to her, the overt act attributed to the accused who have been enlarged on bail is different, in the sense that they did not inflict such kind of an injury as would result in death.

¶23

The argument of Government Pleader cannot be accepted. The allegations are that all the accused attacked the deceased at a time. The investigating officer has invoked Section 149 I.P.C. If ultimately the prosecution will succeed in establishing its case, if presence of all these accused is proved, they should all be convicted in the light of Section 149 I.P.C. In this view of the matter just because the overt act attributed to other accused is something different from the petitioner, it cannot be said that parity is not applicable. I am of the opinion that this petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Hence, the following:

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶27

(b) Petitioner shall be released on bail on

¶28

obtaining from him a bond for `2,00,000/(Rupees two lakh only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶29

The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions: (i) He shall not threaten the witnesses and destroy the evidence in whatsoever manner.

¶30

(ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶31

(iii) He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of trial.

¶32

(iv) Till conclusion of trial, he shall mark his attendance in the respondent-police station once in a fifteen days between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.

¶33

Violation of any of the conditions will be seriously viewed for cancellation of bail.

¶34

CLK

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

Praveena @ Karadi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveena @ Karadi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhiswamy S/O Rangaswamy, Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjeev Chouhan Vs State of Karnataka

Prasad Vs State by Chamrajnagar Town Police

Kalika Devasthan Vishwasth Mandali Vs Veerupakshi Balkrishnappa Kadlaskar

Sri.Gurulingayya Shivayya Hiremath Vs Sri.Murigeyya Shivayya Hiremath

Prabhu Jayaraj S G Vs State of Karnataka