Ramesh @ Ekamabram vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5935 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3426 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

Ramesh @ Ekamabram
Son of Shanmug am,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o 4/37, Chinnayya Mestri Thotam,
Abhaya Nagar, Thirp atturu-695601.
Veluru District, Tamilnad u State.
                                            ...Petitioner
(By Sri Rajakumar C., Advocate)


AND:

1.    State of Karnataka by
      Hennur Police Station,
      Beng aluru,
      Represented by
      State Pub lic Prosecutor,
      Hig h Court of Karnataka
      Beng aluru - 560001.

2.    Sri M Ramesh,
      APC-843 (Jeep Driver) CAR (South)
      Hennur Police Station,
      Beng aluru-560043.
                                          ...Respondents
(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1 & R2)


      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings
pend ing on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and
                                    :: 2 ::


Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Beng aluru City (CCH-
22) in S.C.NO.352/2016, (in Crime No.46/2012) for
the offence punishab le und er Section 143, 147, 148,
353, 332, 307, 120(b) read with Section 149 of IPC of
Hennur Police Station, allow the petition and etc.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court made the following:

                                   ORDER

Heard Sri Rajakumar C, learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in

S.C.No.352/2016, on the file of XIII Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit,

Bengaluru City. At the initial stage, the police

filed charge sheet which was numbered as

S.C.No.869/2012 in relation to offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 307,

120B read with Section 149 of IPC. The charge

sheet against accused 1 and 4 was split, since

they did not appear before the Court and only

accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 faced trial in :: 3 ::

S.C.No.869/2012. Learned Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by her judgment

dated 25.05.2018, acquitted accused 2, 3, 5 and

6, giving benefit of doubt.

3. Now the petitioner is before this Court on

the ground that the same benefit must also be

extended to him, because, even if he is asked to

face the trial, the prosecution case will not

improve, because same witnesses will come and

depose.

4. I have perused the charge sheet. The

allegations against the petitioner are same. The

petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.03.2020.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DEEPAK

RAJAK VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [(2007)15

SCC 305], has clearly held that if one accused is

acquitted, the same benefit may be extended to

the co-accused. Therefore following this principle,

it may be stated that the petitioner is also entitled :: 4 ::

to the benefit of acquittal given to other accused

as all of them stand on same footing. Hence the

following:

ORDER Petition is allowed.

Proceedings against the petitioner in

S.C.No.352/2016 on the file of the XIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru City (CCH-22)

are quashed.

The petitioner shall be set at liberty

forthwith if he is not required in any

other case/s.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-