P.B. Shibu vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition fifed u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 27/2010 on the file of JMFC, Somwarpet has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail.

According to the case of the prosecution, on 28.09.2005, at about 11:30 a.m. when the deceased Sharath was trying to put on TV in his ginger shop in Koodige Village, Kushalanagar, the Petitioner herein along with his two brothers and father came in Maruthi van bearing registration No. KA-043-659 near the ginger shop and, fired on the deceased with a rifle. As a result, the deceased fell down and this was intimated to the father of deceased by Satish Kumar, servant in the shop and immediately father of the deceased came to the shop and saw his injured son lying and shifted him to hospital, where he succumbed to the bullet injury. Thereafter, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint, based on which the case was registered and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, the Petitioner herein and other accused persons were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody. Application filed by the accused persons for grant of bail were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. However, subsequently, accused Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to be released on bail by this Court, the Petitioner has sought for bail mainly on the principles of parity, as according to him, the allegations made against him are similar to the allegations against others, who have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, on the principles of parity, he? is entitled for an order of bail.

The petition is opposed by the Respondent. I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that though according to the eye witnesses all the four persons came in maruthi van and fired at the deceased and during investigation, two fire arms were seized and according to the medical evidence, there were pallets in the body as such the deceased died on account of gun shot injury, there is no evidence to indicate as to who among the four persons fired the bullets. Therefore, since the other three accused persons have already been released on bail, the Petitioner is also entitled for bail.

There is no dispute that accused Nos. 2 to 6 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The allegations made against the Petitioner herein is similar to the allegation made against the others.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since other accused have already been enlarged on bail, there is no reason to deny the said relief to the Petitioner. Therefore, on the principles of parity, the Petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with C.C. No. 27/2010 on the file of JMFC, Somwarpet subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court;

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional Court on all hearing dates without fail.