Criminal petition filed to enlarge petitioner on bail for offences under various sections of IPC including murder. Court examined nature of offence, weapon used, eye witness statements, and principle of parity. Held petitioner not entitled to bail.
Petition for bail dismissed holding petitioner is 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 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 906 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHIRAG. C. S. S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT CHIKKALLA SATTIHALLI VILLAGE, GULAN PETE POST ALDUR HOBALI CHIKMAGALUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.118/2023 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.77/2023 DATED 05.05.2023 REGISTERED BY ALDUR P.S) ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 114, 324, 307, 302, 447, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 05.09.2024 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 13.09.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.2, to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.77/2023 of Aldur Police Station, Chikkamagalur, pending in SC No.118/2023 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur.
persons for offences p/u/s 120(B), 114, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 447, 506 r/w 149 IPC.
petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/defacto complainant and perused the material on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:37661 CRL.P No. 906 of 2024
accused No.2 attempted to assault CW2-Lakshmana
Gowda and while trying to evade the blow, he sustained severe injury to his hand, accused No.1 dragged the deceased and stabbed him with knife on his neck, Accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with sickle on his neck and head, accused Nos.3 to 5 assaulted the deceased
with clubs, accused Nos.6 to 11 instigated them and thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. Hearing the commotion Bhagyamma (CW6) wife of Lakshmana Gowda and Sahana (CW7) wife of deceased Praveen came running to the spot. Deceased was shifted
to Mudigere Govt. Hospital wherein, the Doctor declared him brought dead.
appearing for the petitioner that, admittedly there is a civil dispute existing between the parties and civil and criminal cases are pending against them. In view of the said dispute, the complainant has falsely implicated as many accused as possible. He contended that the complainant’s
party themselves are the aggressors and there is inherent inconsistency in the statements of the eye witnesses, regarding the weapon used by the petitioner. Accused Nos.3 to 6 against whom there are allegations of assaulting the deceased with clubs have been enlarged on bail and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
that as per post mortem report, death is due to ‘blunt heavy force impact’. The said injury is due to assault by clubs. Petitioner was neither armed with a club nor assaulted the deceased on his head with the club. CW.6, whose statement is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has not alleged any overt act against the petitioner. The weapons are recovered jointly from the accused and therefore, the same cannot be believed.
Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions. Accordingly, he has sought to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Pleader appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. He was armed with a sickle at the time of incident and he has assaulted the deceased on his neck and head. CWs.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses. They have clearly stated about the overt acts of the petitioner. CW2 has sustained injuries and therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. His statement has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein he has clearly stated that the petitioner has assaulted him with a sickle and when he tried to stop him, sustained injuries to his hand. Again, petitioner assaulted the deceased with the sickle on his head and neck.
NC: 2024:KHC:37661 CRL.P No. 906 of 2024
offence, the weapons were concealed by the accused persons, including the petitioner in a shed situated behind his house. 2 clubs, a knife and a sickle were recovered from the said shed and 2 clubs were recovered from the spot. Further, blood stained pant and shirt of the petitioner were also recovered. As per FSL report the seized weapons and clothes are stained with human blood.
cases were pending between them. In O.S.No.247/2021, an injunction order was passed against the accused and the appeal preferred by them against the said order was also dismissed. In this background, on 5.5.2023 at 8.00 a.m., all the accused having formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the
said land and started dumping soil on the road. When CWs.1 and 2 and his son Praveen on hearing the sound of the tractor went and questioned them, accused persons picked up quarrel with them and accused Nos.7 to 11 instigated other accused persons to assault them. Accused Nos.3 to 6 assaulted the injured and the deceased with clubs, accused No.2 assaulted CW2 and deceased Praveen with sickle and accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with a knife.
of their statements clearly reveal that the petitioner was armed with a sickle and he assaulted the deceased on his neck and head and also assaulted CW2 with the said sickle
and caused injuries to his right hand. Deceased has sustained about seven external injuries, as per Post Mortem report. Injuries-1 to 4 are cut and lacerated wounds on the neck and parietal region.
instigated other accused persons. Whereas, the material on record reveal that petitioner was armed with a sickle when he came to the spot.
Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Anr. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 has held that while applying principle of parity, Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider totality of circumstances. In deciding the aspect of parity, role attached to the accused, their position in relation to incident and to victims is of utmost importance.
petition before this Court in Crl.P.No.12212/2023 and connected matters. While bail was granted to accused Nos.3 to 5, petition in respect of accused No.1 was rejected on the ground that serious allegations are made against him that he assaulted the deceased on his neck with the knife. It is also observed in the said order that accused No.2 also assaulted the deceased on his neck and
NC: 2024:KHC:37661 CRL.P No. 906 of 2024
head with the sickle which he was holding and caused grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner does not stand on the same footing as other accused who are enlarged on bail.
SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the heinous nature of the offence with which he is implicated.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in terms of accused persons who were granted bail on the ground of parity in proceedings.
Whether the ground that the petitioner was not armed with a club while other accused were, establishes a sufficient ground to grant bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai MakwanaReferred¶63
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & Anr. (2021) 6 SCC 230 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. CHIRAG. C. S.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
GAJENDRA C.R.
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
