In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for murder, the court rejected the petitioner's claim for parity as he was specifically charged with causing the fatal head injury, whereas other accused were alleged to have only held the victim.
Bail prayer 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 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7476 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI.RISHI S/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.71, 10TH A CROSS, SHIVAREDDY LAYOUT, NAGANATHAPURA ELECTRONIC POST, BANGALORE -560100 ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MOYEENULLA ABBASI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR,HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
2
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.214/2020 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 115 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING IN S.C.NO.29/2021 ON THE FILE OF LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.214/2020 of Parappanna Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 115 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3
continued and he came out, at that time this petitioner inflicted injury on the head of the victim and others also caught hold of him and as a result of the injuries to the vital part of head, victim succumbed to injuries and police have investigated and filed charge sheet.
4
have seen this petitioner committing murder and hence parity will not arise and petitioner is not entitled for bail.
5
accused but only stated that she was also present near the seen of occurrence and she was watching the incident. In Crl.P.No.3918/2021 this court while exercising discretion held that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and statements are recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and overt-act of assaulting the victim with deadly weapon is against accused No.2 and the only allegation against accused No.3 is that he held the victim and hence discretion is exercised. In Crl.P.No.4666/2021 this court while exercising discretion held that the allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 3 is that they caught hold of the deceased while accused No.2 assaulted him which has resulted in his death and while exercising discretion also overt act of this petitioner has been stated in all the petitions and hence petitioner is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity and as contended mere filing of charge sheet is not sufficient to come to conclusion that discretion can be exercised in favour of this petitioner when there is specific allegation of inflicting injury on the head and because of head injury the victim succumbed.
6
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity when other accused were enlarged?
Whether the specific allegation of inflicting a fatal head injury precludes bail?
Sri. Rishi
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
