Karnataka High Court
Naresha vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1738/2022
BETWEEN:
NARESHA
s/o NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
KUVEMPU NAGARA
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562123
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K.A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.103/2021 OF HALASURGATE POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 255, 257, 256, 258, 259, 260, 420, 473 READ WITH
34 OF IPC AND ETC.
2
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 in Crime No.103/2021 of
Nelamangala Town Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 341, 354(D), 427, 120(B), 302 read with 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 this petitioner
and other accused persons in connection with love affair between
the daughter of the deceased as well as the accused No.1, when
CW-2 and the victim were proceeding in a motorcycle,
wrongfully restrained them and assaulted the victim with the
iron rod. As a result, the injured succumbed to the injuries.
Based on the complaint, the case was registered, after the
completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for
the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that earlier this petitioner had filed a case in
Crl.P.No.8885/2021 and the same was withdrawn with liberty to
approach the Trial Court. The counsel further submits that after
filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner approached the Trial
Court and the Trial Court dismissed the bail petition and hence,
the present petition is filed before the Court. The counsel would
submit that though the prosecution had relied upon the evidence
of eye-witness and in 164 statement, he has not stated that
which weapon was used to commit the alleged murder. The
counsel also submits that this Court already granted bail in
favour of accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.9840/2021 and hence, this
petitioner is also entitled for the bail on the ground of parity.
The counsel would submit that this petitioner is in custody from
24.08.2021, investigation is completed and no need of custodial
trial and prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the State would submit that the prosecution is mainly
relied upon the direct evidence i.e., the evidence of eye-witness
and apart from that weapon was also seized and the mother of
the complainant was also rushed to the spot immediately after
the incident who also gone for walk on the date of the incident
and immediately, the complaint was given by the complainant
who is an eye-witness and the complaint was given within a span
of 1 to 1½ hours. The police have investigated the matter and
charge-sheet has been filed and hence, there are sufficient
materials against the petitioner herein and prayed to dismiss the
petition.
6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for
the parties and also on perusal of the material on record and
looking to the material on record, the complainant who is the
eye-witness to the alleged incident and it is his specific case that
when the victim and he himself were proceeding in the
motorcycle, this petitioner along with other came and wrongfully
restrained them and assaulted with the iron rod and the injured
succumbed to the injuries and the eye-witness also sustained
simple injuries in the alleged incident. When the complainant is
the eye-witness and when the direct evidence available against
the petitioner, the very contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that investigation is completed and charge-sheet has
been filed and no need of custodial trial cannot be accepted since
it is a heinous offence of taking of life of the victim and motive
for committing the murder in connection with the not giving
consent by the deceased to the love affair between this
petitioner and his daughter. The other contention of the
petitioner's counsel is that accused No.2 already been enlarged
on bail cannot be a ground since while invoking the parity also
the Court has to take note of the role of each of the accused
persons. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2021) 6
SCC 230 in the case of RAMESH BAHVAN RATHOD vs
VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER
held that 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 the basis of parity. The Apex Court also held
that while considering the bail on the ground of parity on behalf
of other accused person, the Court has to take note of the role of
each of the accused persons. But in the case on hand, the very
specific allegation against this petitioner is that he inflicted injury
with the iron rod and consequently, the injured sustained injuries
and succumbed to the said injuries. When such being the factual
aspects of the case, the question of parity does not arise as
contended by the petitioner's counsel and mere filing of charge-
sheet is also not a ground to enlarge him on bail when heinous
offence of alleged murder was committed. Hence, it is not a fit
case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
