Criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case alleging property dispute dispute. High Court rejected argument for parity with co-accused due to different overt acts.
Criminal petition for bail dismissed; petitioners not entitled to bail.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1389 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/A MAKALI VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -561 203.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.12/2022 OF HOSAHALLI P.S., DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 302 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SSSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DODDABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.10022/2022.
CRL.P No. 1389 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.12/2022 of Hosahalli Police Station, pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural district, Doddaballapura, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 114, 323, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 307, 149 of the IPC, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Mr.Muniraju
the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. They are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis.
CRL.P No. 1389 of 2023
They were apprehended on 09.05.2022 and since then they are in judicial custody. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that initially the case under Section 307 of IPC was registered against accused Nos.1 to 10. Accused Nos. 3 to 10 are already enlarged on bail. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the case will not fall under Section 302 of IPC; at the most, it will fall under Section 304 of IPC. The incident might have occurred as a result of self defence. The offence is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the benefit of parity with the other accused who are already enlarged on bail.
CRL.P No. 1389 of 2023
resisted the high handed acts of the deceased. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
CRL.P No. 1389 of 2023
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following:
R E A S O N S
CRL.P No. 1389 of 2023
prosecution. Whether it is the case falling under any of the exception Section 300 of IPC or not is to be considered only at the time of trial but as of now, there are sufficient materials to constitute the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
petitioners that other accused i.e., accused Nos. 3 to 10 were already enlarged on bail and therefore, petitioners are also entitled for bail on parity cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the overt act alleged against accused Nos. 3 to 10 is entirely different from the overt act alleged against these petitioners. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113 CT: AVB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Whether reliance on parity with co-accused granted bail permits granting bail to petitioners.
Whether the offence is self-defence or punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Nagesha M.V
Sri. Govindaraju
State of Karnataka
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
