Karnataka High Court
Dileep L vs State By on 4 January, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9883/2021
BETWEEN:
DILEEP L.
S/O. LATE LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT #939/2
4TH CROSS, SUNNADA KERI
K.R. MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 024. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
K.R. POLICE STATION
MYSURU
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.13/2021 OF KRISHNARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU
CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341,
504, 307, 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF I.P.C IN S.C.
2
NO.148/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.13/2021
of Krishnaraja Police Station, Krishnaraja Sub-Division, Mysuru
City, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307
and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 07.02.2021,
when CWs-1, 3 and 12 were consuming liquor, a scuffle has
taken place between the deceased persons and accused No.1.
Hence, accused No.1 informed the same to accused Nos.2 to 4.
Due to the previous ill-will, they came with a machete and also
knife in the motorcycle belonging to accused No.1 along with
accused No.2, who is the petitioner herein. Accused Nos.3 and 4
also came in the other motorcycle. Due to the ill-will, the
petitioner inflicted the injuries with deadly weapons at around
11.30 p.m. As a result, two persons lost their lives and
complainant also sustained injuries.
4 Based on the complaint, the police have registered
the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that this petitioner is in custody from 09.02.2021
and investigation has been completed and no custodial trial is
required. He would further submit that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4
have already been enlarged on bail. Hence, on the ground of
parity, this petitioner may be enlarged on bail and the question
of tampering the prosecution witness does not arise.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that
this petitioner himself inflicted injury on the vital part of the
victims i.e., on the neck and when the complainant went to
pacify the galatta and rescued the victims, the complainant was
also assaulted. He would further submit that this petitioner took
the life of two persons at the instigation of accused No.1, since
there was an ill-will between the accused No.1 and the victims.
The offence of committing murder of two persons is a heinous
offence and hence, this petitioner is not entitled for bail.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State and also taking into note of material collected
by the Investigating Officer, there are eye witnesses to the
incident i.e., CWs-1 and 3, who have also given 164 statement
before the learned Magistrate having witnessed the incident.
The specific allegation against this petitioner is that, he inflicted
injuries on the vital part i.e., on the neck of the victim and not
only assaulted one person and also committed murder of
another victim with deadly weapon.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mother of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and she is in
her final stage and he has to take care of his mother. In an
heinous offence of committing murder, the grounds urged by the
petitioner is not sustainable.
9. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that other accused have been enlarged on bail and this
petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity is also
not sustainable. The Apex Court, in the judgment in the case of
RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI
MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 (6) SCC
230 has held that, while granting bail on the ground of parity
with co-accused, the Court has to take note of the manner in
which the same has to be determined. While applying principle
of parity, Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious
manner and has to consider totality of circumstances before
granting bail on the ground of parity. While granting bail, the
Court must focus upon role of accused, and not only on weapon
carried by accused. Merely observing that another accused who
was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient
to determine whether bail can be granted on basis of parity. In
deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position
in relation to incident and to victims is of utmost importance.
10. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment of the Apex Court, in the case on hand, the question of
parity does not arise since, this petitioner inflicted injury on the
vital part of the victims and committed murder of two persons as
alleged in the charge-sheet and as per the material collected by
the prosecution, there are eye witnesses to the incident i.e.,
CWs-1 and 3. Apart from that, those witnesses have also given
statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164(5) of
Cr.P.C. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on merits as well as on the ground of
parity.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
