Ambarish vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 4 in Crime No. 74/11 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 332, 353, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.

According to the case of the prosecution, during the night of 19.03.2011 when Thimma Raju, Assistant Sub Inspector of Parappana Agrahara Police Station along with his staff was on patrolling duty in Hoysala Vehicle with the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, at 10.20 p.m. they saw a person coming towards them running mad on enquiry with the said person, he informed that one J.C.B. Narayan and his four companions are trying to rob the persons who come on the road and that he came running by escaping from their clutches. Immediately, Assistant Sub Inspector and his staff went near a TATA safari Vehicle parked at a distance and there they sew J.C.B. Narayan along with four others trying to rob the people moving on the road and when the Police Party tried to Catch hold of J.C.B. Narayan and his Companions, those persons tried to assault the police staff. J.C.B. Narayan fired with the pistol at the ASI, however, the bullet did not hit him and all of them managed to escape from the place. Assistant Sub Inspector was able to note the registration number of the vehicle. On the basis of the report lodged by the Assistant Sub Inspector case was registered and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, this Petitioner was apprehended on 13.06.2011 and since then he has been in judicial custody. His prayer made before the learned Sessions Judge for bail came to be rejected, therefore, Petitioner is before this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records made available.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that this Court has already granted bail to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are similarly placed therefore, Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity.

A copy of the order passed in Criminal Petition No. 2739/2011 is produced and perusal of the same indicates that this Court has already granted bail to a accused Nos. 2 and 3. Perusal of the records prima facie indicates that allegations made against this Petitioner is on par with the allegations made against accused Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, Petitioner stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos. 2 and 3. As the accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already been granted bail, I find No. reason to deny the relief of bail to this Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled for the relief of bail on the principle of parity.

In the result, petition is allowed, Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 74/11 of Parappana Agrahara Police station, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate/ Learned Session Judge and subject to further conditions:

i) that the Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

ii) that the Petitioner shall appear before the I.O as and when so required and shall co-operate in the investigation of the case.

iii) that the Petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to one alleged against him.

iv) that the Petitioner shall mark his attendance with I.O on every 10th and 25th of each calendar month till conclusion of the trial of the case.