High Court at Bangalore dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused vehicle driver charged with murder and conspiracy. The court rejected the parity argument, finding the petitioner participated in the crime's commission.
Criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlargement on bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.949/2021
BETWEEN:
SHISHIR D AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LINGAPPA GOWDA, R/AT ADKAR KONADKA HOUSE, JALSOOR VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 239. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, SULLIA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.74/2020 OF SULLIA P.S., D.K. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 324, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 25 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.74/2020 registered by Sullia Police for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act.
3
house of Cws.2 and 3 and later, filed a complaint against unknown persons. During the investigation, the police has arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 and this petitioner on 11.10.2020 and remanded to Judicial Custody. It is revealed during the investigation that on the conspiracy between accused No.8 and accused Nos.1 to 4, offence has been committed. It is also revealed from the investigation that due to the professional business rivalry, accused Nos.1 to 4 and this petitioner is said to have traveled in a car and the deceased Sampath Kumar was also coming in a car and they stopped the car in the road, they tried to attack the deceased but he did not open the window of the car, then the accused Nos.1 and 3 broke the window glass of the car by using the back of the gun and deceased started escaping from the clutches and while running, the accused Nos.1 and 3 tried to shoot him by firing towards the deceased but he has escaped and went into the house of CWs.2 and 3. Then accused Nos.1 to 4 chased him and assaulted with dragger and
4
balukatti (ballast) and committed murder of the deceased. The police during the investigation seized the car and remanded to Judicial Custody.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that accused No.8 has been granted bail by this court who is said to have conspired with accused Nos.1 to 4 for committing murder, subsequently the trial court has granted bail to accused Nos.6 and 7 on the ground of parity. On perusal of the entire charge sheet material, though there are five eye witnesses, none of the eye witnesses in the voluntary statement have stated about the overt-act of the petitioner. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. There is no specific overt-act against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected
for the grant of bail and contended that this petitioner was driving the car and had a common intention to commit murder of the deceased. The accused Nos.1 to
5
4 had assaulted and chased the deceased and while returning back, this petitioner stopped the car and prevented the victim from proceeding further in place of incident and thereby, assisted accused Nos.1 to 4 to complete their overt-acts. This goes to show that this petitioner had common intention along with accused Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
6
towards the house of CWs.2 and 3 but this accused persons fired towards him to kill by shooting from the gun, but he has escaped and went to the house of CWs.2 and 3 and in the presence of the eye witness, the accused persons committed murder. Of course, this accused No.5 has not actually participated in assaulting the deceased but he is said to have driven the car and after accused Nos.1 to 4 chased the deceased and till coming back, he was present and took them in the car. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge or object in conspiring with accused Nos.1 to 4 in committing murder. Accused Nos.6 to 8 were not present on the spot and the allegation is Section 120B of Indian Penal Code which is punishment for criminal conspiracy. The parity ground is not available to the petitioner in view of the fact that he actually participated in commission of the crime. Therefore, I am of the view that this petitioner is not entitled for bail.
7
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused alleged to have driven the vehicle used in a murder committed by conspirators.
Whether the parity ground for bail is available based on bail granted to other co-accused in the same case.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Shishir D A
State of Karnataka
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
