0

THE GROUND OF PARITY CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE IN HAND CONSIDERING THE SPECIFIC OVERT-ACT ALLEGED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONERS SAYS: KARNATAKA HC

In the matter of SRI SUBRAMANI @ SUBRAMANI RAO VS STATE OF KARNATAKA ON 22 NOVEMBER 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9099 OF 2022) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR stated that This crl.P. Is established under section 439 cr.P.C. Praying for bail applicants in crime no.231/2021 manchenahalli police station and in sc.No.19/2022 in file iii. Punished under sections 427, 302, 143 and 149 ipc. 

This crl.P. Is established under section 439 cr.P.C. Praying for bail applicants in crime no.231/2021 manchenahalli police station and in sc.No.19/2022 in file iii. Punished under sections 427, 302, 143 and 149 ipc. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The petitioners – Accused No. 1 and 4 filed this motion pursuant to Section 439 of the Penal Code. for their extension to bail in Crime No. 231/2021 of the Manchenalli Police Station, which culminates in the presentation of the indictment in the SC. No. 19/2022 in file III. of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, for offenses punishable under Sections 143, 302, 427 are supplemented with Section 149 of the Implementing Regulations. 

  

A brief factual matrix leading to the case is as follows: 

  

Deceased Ashwath Rao owned a plot bearing Sy.No.3/2 measuring 0-35 guntas on which he cultivated tomatoes. He also allegedly installed electric fencing around the property to protect the tomatoes. It is alleged that on 24.11.2021, deceased Vasanth Rao, who is the brother of accused Nos. 2 and 3, trespassed on the land of deceased Ashwath Rao and was electrocuted, as a result of which he died. Thereafter, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and quarreled with the deceased by holding him responsible for the death of Vasanth Rao. They were well prepared and attacked him, causing his death. When the complainant came to know about the said incident, she went to the spot and found that her husband was lying in a pool of blood and he was immediately taken to the hospital where he succumbed. 

  

In this regard, the complainant filed a complaint after obtaining relevant information. Based on the complaint, the Investigating Officer registered an FIR in Crime No. 231/2021 for offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the course of the investigation, the investigator detained the present appellants and they were taken into custody. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer on 22.02.2022 filed a charge sheet and the present petitioners are charged as accused Nos. 1 and 4. They filed a proper bail application before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge rejected their bail application. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court. 

  

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned about the Government Herald of the Supreme Court for the State. He looked through the records. 

  

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there are no eyewitnesses and CWs. He would further submit that Accused Nos. 5 to 10 have been granted bail by the Coordination Court of this Court. They also claim that since last year the petitioners are in custody and their presence is no longer required by the investigating agency and there is no chance of them tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He therefore requested that the appellants be admitted to bail. 

  

On the other hand, the learned Government Representative of the Supreme Court seriously objects to the bail application and submits that CW.2 and 3 are eyewitnesses and a specific overt act is alleged against the present petitioners as they assaulted with a stone on the head and a stick. on the eye of the deceased and the Post Mortem report supports the said claim. It is submitted that there is prima facie material to show that there is an open trial against the present petitioners and there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses if they are granted bail. She therefore asked for the bail application to be rejected. 

  

After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, there is no serious dispute regarding the deceased Ashwath Rao who died of injuries to the head and other parts of the body due to internal bleeding. It is true that his death is a homicide and this is again supported by the Post Mortem report. It follows from the allegations made that he owned land on which he grew tomatoes and the accused damaged them and as such installed electric fencing. According to the prosecution, subsequently the brother of accused Nos. 2 and 3 came in contact with the said electric fencing when he tried to trespass on the said land and succumbed. The result was that the present petitioners and others by harboring a vendetta against deceased Ashwath Rao in the early hours of 25.11.2021, created a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted him with premeditation. The statements of the eyewitnesses namely Kishor and Naveen clearly reveal that they are the eyewitnesses and as the number of persons are about 10-11 who assaulted the deceased, they did not dare to intervene to settle the dispute. Their statement further reveals the specific overt act alleged against the present petitioners. Allegedly, appellant No. 1 attacked the head of the deceased with a stone and appellant No. 2 attacked the eye of the deceased with a club. The said assaults corresponded to the injuries found on the body of the deceased, which is evident from the Post Mortem report. The skull is fractured and death is the result of internal bleeding. 

JUDGMENT 

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR OBSERVED THAT  

After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, there is no serious dispute regarding deceased Ashwath Rao who died of injuries to the head and other parts of the body due to internal bleeding. It is true that his death is a homicide and this is again supported by the Post Mortem report. It follows from the allegations made that he owned land on which he grew tomatoes and the accused damaged them and as such installed electric fencing. According to the prosecution, subsequently the brother of accused Nos. 2 and 3 came in contact with the said electric fencing when he tried to trespass on the said land and succumbed. The result was that the present petitioners and others by harboring a vendetta against deceased Ashwath Rao in the early hours of 25.11.2021, created a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted him with premeditation. The statements of the eyewitnesses namely Kishor and Naveen clearly reveal that they are the eyewitnesses and as the number of persons are about 10-11 who assaulted the deceased, they did not dare to intervene to settle the dispute. Their statement further reveals the specific overt act alleged against the present petitioners. Allegedly, appellant No. 1 attacked the head of the deceased with a stone and appellant No. 2 attacked the eye of the deceased with a club. The said assaults corresponded to the injuries found on the body of the deceased, which is evident from the Post Mortem report. The skull is fractured and death is the result of internal bleeding. The above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that specific overt conduct is alleged against the petitioners present. The reason of parity cannot be applied to the present case with regard to the specific overt act cited by the present petitioners. Learned Sessions Judge has followed all these aspects in detail. If a specific overt act is alleged, merely because the petitioners are in custody for the last one year is no reason for their being granted bail because they have taken the life of a human being. The offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment. 

  

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not an appropriate case to exercise discretion in granting bail in favor of the present petitioners. For that reason, the petition is without merit and does not survive for consideration and therefore the same is dismissed. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR 

Click here to view the judgment

Leave a Reply

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