Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.530 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOHAN, S/O. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105. (BY SRI. MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Facts
BY HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. CHANNAKESHAVA, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT GANGAPURA GRAMA, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.2273/2024. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State would contend that accused No.1 transpired with accused No.2 and gave supari of Rs.10 lakhs and out of that, advance amount was paid to accused No.2 and accused No.2 availed the service of accused Nos.3 to 6. Accused No.3 conspired with accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 No.2 and accused Nos.4 to 6 are the friends of accused No.3. But the main accused is accused No.3, who took the contract of supari and availed the services of accused Nos.4 to 6 in order to eliminate the deceased Naveen Kumar and he lead the team and chased the deceased on the information given by accused No.2 and he played the key role in eliminating the deceased Naveen Kumar. The learned counsel submits that recovery is also made at the instance of all the accused persons and iron rod was recovered and apart from that, C.W.1 is an eye-witness to the incident. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State and also taking note of the case of the prosecution, it is clear that C.W.1 was along with the deceased at the time of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons chased and quarreled with the deceased and they alighted from the car and they carried the iron rod and used the same for assaulting him and on account of assault, he succumbed to the injuries. No doubt, accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted bail on the ground that they were only conspirators and have not played any role. It is important to note that accused Nos.4 and 5 filed an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 application and were enlarged on statutory bail invoking Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. It is evident from the records that accused No.6 had also filed an application before the Trial Court seeking the very same relief, but the same was rejected in coming to the conclusion that accused No.6 has not filed the application before filing of the charge-sheet and filed the application after filing of the charge-sheet. However, this Court in Crl.A.No.2273/2024 enlarged accused No.6 on bail in coming to the conclusion in paragraph No.14 that C.W.1 was called to the police station and he identified the accused persons and he made the statement that he came to know their names through the police and also an observation is made that accused No.1, who was having motive to commit the murder of the deceased has been granted bail and accused Nos.4 and 5 are also granted bail, who are the assailants with accused No.6 and hence accused No.6 is also entitled for bail. 6. Having taken note of the said order, nowhere discussion is made with regard to the overt-act of each of the accused persons. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that in the voluntary statement he made the statement that he only held - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 the collar patti. But the case of the prosecution is that all the assailants carried the iron rod in the car and assaulted the deceased and C.W.1 was an eye-witness. However, taking note of the fact that similar allegation was made against accused Nos.4 to 6 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are already been enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground of charge-sheet was not filed within the stipulated time, accused No.6 was also granted bail on the ground that accused Nos.4 and 5 as well as accused Nos.1 and 2 have been granted bail. The reason given by this Court will not come to the aid of the appellant herein. The very case of the prosecution is that this appellant was the person who conspired with accused No.2 and he led his friends i.e. accused Nos.4 to 6 and he played a key role in eliminating the deceased and the offences invoked against this appellant is Sections 302 and 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short). When C.W.1 was very much present at the time of the incident along with the deceased and he is an eye-witness to the incident, nothing is discussed in the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.2273/2024 that he witnessed the incident. With regard to overt-act is concerned also nothing is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 discussed in the order. Hence, the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.2273/2024 will not come to the aid of the appellant to enlarge him on bail on the ground of parity. 7. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 has held that while invoking the principles of parity, the Court has to take note of the overt-act of each of the accused. In the case on hand, this appellant conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter he only took accused Nos.4 to 6 along with him in order to implement the conspiracy and inflicted injury to the deceased with iron rod. There was a recovery at the instance of this appellant, though it may be a joint recovery at the instance of other accused persons, the question of parity does not arise as held in the judgment of the Apex Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail on the ground of parity having taken note of the factual aspects of the case as well as the very case of the prosecution that this appellant only led the other accused persons, who are his friends i.e., accused Nos.4 to 6 and committed the murder. He is the architect of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 crime in committing the murder by taking supari and eliminated the deceased and hence the matter requires trial. At this juncture, discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the appellant. Hence, I do not find any ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C.GAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IN CRL.MISC.NO. ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 2803/2024 IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024 IN CRIME NO.197/2024 REGISTERED BY HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION, BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 302, 307, 109, 114, 120-B OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting the bail application. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.3 would vehemently contend that though an heinous offence of Section 302 of IPC and special enactment was invoked against all the accused persons, bail is granted in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that they were not at the spot and they were only the conspirators and accused Nos.3 to 6 are the assailants. Accused Nos.4 and 5 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15891 CRL.A No. 530 of 2025 have already been enlarged on bail on the ground that they are entitled for statutory bail since charge-sheet was not filed within the prescribed period. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.2273/2024 dated 06.02.2025 granting bail in favour of accused No.6. The learned counsel contend that the allegation against this accused is that he only held the collar patti and no other overt-act as per the voluntary statement made by the accused. Apart from that, no test identification parade was conducted since accused Nos.3 to 6 are not having any acquaintance with C.W.1, who is an eye-witnesses. The learned counsel contend that when accused Nos.4 to 6 have been enlarged on bail, this appellant also stands on the same footing and hence he may be enlarged on bail by relying upon
Decision
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23