V. Nithin Kumar vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana

The petitioner herein has been arraigned as Accused No. 6 in C.C.No 16214/2011 on the file of the 5th ACMM, Bangalore. He and other accused persons have been accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief as alleged in the charge sheet is that, there was some monetary transaction between Accused No. 1 and the deceased Vishwa @ Vishwanath; in this regard, the deceased was demanding Accused No. 1 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to him; since Accused No. 1 did not pay money, the deceased went near the house of the sister of Accused No. 1 on 10.02.2011 and quarreled with them and gave an ultimate date to Accused No. 1 to pay money and within that date, if he does not pay money, he would assault Accused No. 1 wherever he meets him; on coming to know of this, Accused No. 1 became furious and thereafter, with the help of Accused Nos. 2 to 7, he hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased; in furtherance of the said plan, Accused Nos. 1 to 7 along with juvenile offender Deepak@ Deepu, aged about 17 years, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly came near the house of the deceased at about 10.20 a.m. on 11.02.2011 and there Accused Nos. 1 & 2 went to the house of the deceased, brought him out of the house and while waiting with him on the road, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 stabbed the deceased with the dragger and assaulted him with the long and the juvenile offender assaulted the deceased with long; as a result, the said Vishwa @ Vishwanath sustained severe injuries to which he later succumbed at about 10.50 am in Gayathri Hospital, Vijayanagar. According to the prosecution, at the time of assault on the deceased, this petitioner and other accused persons were standing around the place of the incident.

During investigation, this petitioner was arrested and later subjected to judicial custody. His prayer for bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. It appears, on an earlier occasion, this petitioner had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2122/2011 wherein this Court granted him bail for a limited period an the ground that he is required to appear for examination of Diploma in Information Science and he was directed to surrender before the Jurisdictional Court after examination on 20.07.2011. Accordingly, he surrendered himself before the Court on that day and sought for bail. However, his prayer for bail came to be rejected, therefore, once again he is before this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent-State. Perused the records made available.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even if the allegations made in the charge sheet against this petitioner are accepted at its face value, it does not prima facie indicate the involvement of this petitioner in the homicidal death of the deceased nor any overt act is attributed against him, therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is also his submission that Accused No. 4-Kantharaj and Accused No. 5-Sachin, who are similarly placed have already been granted bail by this Court, therefore, on the principles of parity, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

As noticed supra, as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, the overt act attributed against this petitioner is that, he along with other accused persons stood around the scene of occurrence while Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the juvenile offender inflicted fatal blows on the deceased. Thus, even according to the allegations made in the charge sheet, this petitioner did not inflict any injury to the deceased. Even as against Accused No. 4-Kantharaj and Accused No. 5-Sachin, same allegations have been made. This Court in Criminal Petition No. 2010/2011 and Criminal Petition No. 3303/2011 has granted bail to Accused Nos. 4 & 5 on the ground that no overt act of assault on the deceased is attributed against them.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that Accused Nos. 4 & 5, who are similarly pieced have already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the principles of parity, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in C.C No. 16214/2011 on the file of the V ACMM, Bangalore, on his executing personal bond &r a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surely for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate/ Sessions Judge and also subject to further conditions that,-

i) the petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) the petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged against him;

iii) the petitioner shall appear before the Court/s on fill hearing dates without fail;

iv) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions at Bangalore without the express permission of the Court concerned.

v) the petitioner shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station on every 10th and 25th of each calendar month between 10.00 am and 5.00 p.m., till the disposal of the case.