Tabreez vs State

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused 6 under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No. 79 of 2013. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused 6 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 there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned Counsel also submitted that accused 7 against whom similar allegations are made had approached this Court and this Court, after considering the merits of case, has ultimately allowed the petition in respect of accused 7 and granted bail to him. The learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner-accused 6 is also standing on the same footing with that of accused 7. Hence, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the allegations as against the petitioner, he has assaulted the deceased with club. Therefore, he cannot claim the ground of parity as considered in case of accused 7. Hence, 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 produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The materials goes to show that accused 1 was having illicit connection with one Sharadamma and the deceased was also often talking to the said Sharadamma. Due to that reason, accused 1 suspected the deceased and his relationship with Sharadamma. The materials also go to show that accused 1 conspired with the other accused persons to eliminate the deceased and in that connection, he had contacted accused 2, who got the other accused persons. Accused 1 also agreed to give Rs. 25,000/- to each of accused 5 to 7. The other materials collected during investigation go to show that accused 1 along with another accused Nalin came to the spot and accused Krishnamurthy brought the deceased on his motorcycle to the place of incident and all the other accused persons gathered at the said place and assaulted the deceased and committed his murder. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that he has also assaulted the deceased with club and thereby, caused injuries to the deceased. The Investigating Officer has recorded the voluntary statement of the petitioner during investigation and seized the weapons used in committing the alleged offence. I have also perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused 7 is concerned. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint and the other materials collected during investigation, they are not exactly one and the same. So far as the petitioner, there is an allegation that he has also assaulted the deceased with club. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, the ground of parity is not made applicable to the petitioner. The prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected.