Rule of parity cannot form the ground for bail: High court of Karnataka

The criminal petition is filed under section 438 of CR.P.C ( direction for grant of bail to person apprehending ) for the enlargement on bail for the offence punishable under section 364( kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 201( Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender),302 ( punishment for murder) read with Section 149 ( Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of IPC by the petitioner. And the petition was rejected by the high court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by Honorable Mr. Justice H P Sandesh in the case of Ameer vs state of Karnataka (criminal petition no. 8337/2021) on 20th January 2022.

 Brief facts of the case are that accused no.1 took the loan of Rs.35,000/- and he was insisting to pay the additional amount of Rs.75,000/- and the victim was repeatedly visited the house of the accused no.1 demanding to pay the amount. Hence, he had an ill-will against the said victim and took the decision to get rid from the victim and in that connection, he conspired with other accused. On 29thoctober 20 accused no.3 that is petitioner and accused no.4 using the towel, made him to fell down and at that time, accused no.1 assaulted with his hands and accused no.2 also assaulted with his hands on his stomach, accused no.5 kicked the victim on his private parts and committed murder of the victim and thereafter took the body in the Ape goods auto and buried the body of the victim. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated and filed the charge-sheet for the offences.

Arguments presented by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that accused no.5 has already been enlarged on bail by this court on 31th July 2021 and apart from that the counsel would vehemently contend that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no prima facie material against this petitioner. The counsel further submits that this petitioner is in custody and investigation has been completed and charge-sheet also filed and prosecution is mainly relying upon the last seen theory and there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and there are only 44 witnesses and it takes time for trial and hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail for trial and hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

  1. Arguments presented by the learned High court government pleader appearing on behalf  of the state that CW2 and 3 who are the witnesses stated that this petitioner along with others were took the victim in the auto rickshaw belongs to accused No.2 and accused no.2 took the victim as per the instructions of accused No.1 and all of them joined together and committed the murder and there was injury near the neck and there are ligature mark on the neck and hence, there is a prima facie material against this petitioner who had also indulged in making him to fell down by using the towel and the opinion of the doctor is also that the cause of death was due to external compression on the neck by a ligature and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

The court after taking note of facts of the case which alleges the petitioner for the death of victim and cause of death is external compression on the neck by ligature, denies petitioner’s trial on the ground of inequality. And the petition is rejected by the court.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *