Shankara B.M. vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 309/2013. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 143, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that on an earlier occasion, the present petitioner had approached this Court seeking his release on bail in Crl. P. No. 7726/2013 and this Court by order dated 12.2.2014 has rejected the bail application holding that the prosecution has placed prima facie materials regarding involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence u/s 302 of IPC. The learned Counsel further submitted that the other accused persons who are alleged to have held the deceased person have been already granted bail by the order of this Court. Even according to the version of the eye witnesses, it is held that the petitioner has assaulted the deceased on his hand with long. As per the medical report, the death of the deceased is due to the injury sustained on-the chest. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail in view of changed circumstances. As the charge sheet has been filed, the petition is maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

a) 2006 Crl. L.J. 2017 (Jatan Das & Ors. V/S. State of West Bengal)

b) 1999(4) Crimes 313 (Jagdish & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan)

The learned Counsel further submitted that as the other accused persons have been granted bail, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In this connection, he has relied on the following decisions:

a) Sri. K.M. Ashoka Vs. State of Karnataka,

b) 2009(3) Crimes 4 (Delhi)(Sharif V/S. State)

c) Yunis and Another Vs. State of U.P.,

d) 2009(3) Crimes 673 (MP) (Bheronlal V/S. State of Madhya Pradesh)

e) Shri Sham Ramnath Kamulkar Vs. State

f) B. Vishwanath Vs. The State,

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that there is an eye witness to the alleged incident who has spoken about the presence as well as involvement of the petitioner in assaulting the deceased with a deadly weapon. He submitted that during investigation, the said weapon has been seized at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, the learned HCGP submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.

With regard to the overt acts attributed against the other accused persons, who have been granted bail, they are said to have caught hold the deceased and that was the reason for this Court to grant bail to the said accused persons. But looking to the allegations against the petitioner, the statement of eye witness shows that the petitioner was holding the deadly weapon and assaulted the deceased with the said weapon. Therefore, the ground of parity is not applicable to the petitioner.

I have perused the earlier order passed by this Court in Crl. P No. 7726/2013. The entire merits of the case were considered by this Court and ultimately, this Court came to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the petitioner about his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, at present, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has assaulted the deceased with a lethal weapon, the said weapon is not the cause for the death and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, cannot be accepted at all. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly rejected.

However, in view of submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in custody, I direct the concerned Sessions Judge to take up the matter on priority basis and dispose of the same as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy, of this order.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Sessions Court forthwith.