Dismissed

Deepu @ Dhobi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2023CRL.P/1203/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of parity as other co-accused were freed. The Court held that disparity in bail grants arises because other accused lacked overt-act allegations, whereas this petitioner faced serious eye-witnessed charges of inflicting fatal injuries.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition was rejected; the petitioner remains in custody.

Deepu @ Dhobi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1203 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEEPU @ DHOBI, S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.162/A, 3^RD CROSS, MAHAGANAPATHINAGARA, SHIVANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE, BANGALOPRE-560 079. (REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK, BANGALORE-01).

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.194/2021 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC IN S.C.NO.555/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶22

This is a successive bail petition and earlier

¶23

this petitioner, who has been arraigned as accused No.3, had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.9514/2021. This Court rejected the petition considering the material available on record that there are eye-witnesses to the incident i.e., C.W.1 and C.Ws.11 to 16 and they speak with regard to the presence of the petitioner and also the overt-act that he dragged the victim along with accused Nos.1 and 2 and all of them have assaulted the victim. The cause of death is on account of multiple injuries sustained by him, particularly head injury and death was taken place after 17 days of the incident of assault. This Court taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KUMER SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J. 4244, wherein an

¶24

3 - CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶25

observation is made that when they are facing the charge of unlawful assembly with the common object and in furtherance of common object, all of them have inflicted injury, the same has to be considered at the time of trial.

¶26

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

would contend that accused No.1 has been granted bail based on medical evidence that he is suffering from HIV.

¶28

The learned counsel submits that accused Nos.4 to 6 have also been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court and this petitioner is in custody from 23.07.2021. The learned counsel submits that similar allegations are made against accused Nos.4 to 6 and they have been enlarged on bail and allegations against this petitioner is also that along with other accused persons, he inflicted injury. Hence, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court

¶30

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶33

submits that C.W.1 and C.WS.11 to 16 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and there were multiple injuries and though deadly weapons are not used, but the cause of death is on account of head injury sustained by him and the presence of this petitioner was not disputed. The learned counsel submits that it attracts Section 304 Part II of IPC, cannot be decided in a bail petition when

¶34

the presence is not disputed and eye-witnesses have witnessed the incident of assault made by this petitioner and hence the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, this Court rejected the earlier bail petition of the petitioner in coming to the conclusion that C.W.1 and C.WS.11 to 16 are the eye-witnesses and no doubt, the Trial Court granted bail in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. Though it is contended in the earlier petition that accused Nos.4 to 6 have been enlarged on bail, the said order was not

¶36

5 - CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶37

placed before the Court and now the same is placed before the Court. On perusal of the order granted in favour of accused Nos.4 and 6, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that there are no overt-act allegations. While granting bail in favour of accused Nos.4 and 6 comes to the conclusion that other accused persons have been enlarged on bail and hence, they are entitled for bail on the ground of parity. When such order is passed by the Trial Court, the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground of parity.

¶38

6. This Court rejected the earlier bail petition

¶39

taking note of the overt-act of each of the accused persons and particularly in respect of this petitioner in paragraph No.7 taken note of the injuries found in the post mortem report and cause of death is on account of head injury. C.W.1 and C.Ws.11 to 16 speak with regard to the presence of the petitioner and also the overt-act that he dragged the victim along with accused Nos.1 and

¶40

6 - CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶41

2 and all of them assaulted the victim. The cause of

¶42

death is on account of multiple injuries, particularly head injury. It is also taken note of the fact that the injured died after 17 days when he was in the hospital and hence relied upon the case of Kumer Singh (supra) and also on the ground of parity, the Court has to take note of the overt-act of each of the accused persons and when this

¶43

Court has formulated the point with regard to the presence of the petitioner and also injuries are inflicted and even though no weapons are used, the Court has to see the nature of injuries sustained by the victim and he had suffered the multiple injuries and death is on account of head injury. Hence, the order passed in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6 cannot be a ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail when a serious allegation is made against this petitioner that he had inflicted injury along with other accused persons. The ground of parity has to be considered if no overt-act allegation and the Trial Court while granting bail in favour of accused Nos.4 and

¶44

6 even not discussed with regard to the material

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 1203 of 2023

¶47

available on record and even not touched upon the statement of C.W.1 and C.Ws.11 to 16 and hence discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner on the ground of parity.

¶48

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶49

the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petition is rejected.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Deepu @ Dhobi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu @ Dhobi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shankarappa Vs Sri Nagaraju

Sri Appaswamy Vs Smt Rathnamma S

Smt. Shakeelabi Vs Sri Ariff Ahamed

Dasharatha Vs G.Dasegowda

M.B.Ekambrachari Vs Smt. H.R.Sharadamma

Lakshmana Vs State by Srirampura Police Station