Ashok vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7539 Kant

                                1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3990/2022

BETWEEN:

1.     ASHOK S/O BABU,
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.27, 4TH CROSS,
       SUDHAMANAGARA,
       WILSON GAREN,
       BENGALURU-560 027

2.     AVINASH S/O BABU
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.27, 4TH CROSS,
       SUDDHAMANAGARA,
       WILSON GARDEN,
       BENGALURU-560 027.                 ... PETITIONERS

              (BY SRI RAM SINGH K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 096
REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.                       ... RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
                                 2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
SC.NO.243/2022 (CR.NO.211/2021) OF NANDINI LAYOUT P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.143, 147, 148,
302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 35, 25(1)(B)(b)
OF ARMS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59) BENGALURU.

     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 petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime

No.211/2021 of Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City,

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 302

read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 35, 25(1)(B)(b) of

Arms Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that with regard to the quarrel between the neighbours, accused

No.5 secured accused No.1 quarrelling with CW.11 from the last

one year. That on the date of the incident called these two

accused persons and other accused persons and supplied the

dragger and the iron rod; with that iron-rod accused No.5

inflicted the injury on the victim and this incident is also

witnessed by CWs.11 to 15. CW.15 also sustained the injuries

and consequent upon the said inflicting of injuries by accused

No.1 and these two petitioners, the injured succumbed to the

injuries. The police have registered a case, investigated the

matter and filed the charge sheet.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that these two petitioners are arraigned as

accused Nos.2 and 3. The overt act allegation made against

accused No.1, is that he inflicted injury with dragger and there

were eight stab injuries and the injuries found on the victim are

not on account of the injuries inflicted by the iron rod. The

allegation against these two petitioners are that they have

inflicted injuries with an iron-rod and no such serious

corresponding injuries and only an abrasion found over the body.

The investigation has already been completed and the charge

sheet is also filed. Hence, the custodial trial is not required.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that

accused No.5 only secured these petitioners along with other

accused persons and she has supplied the deadly weapons and

these two petitioners also inflicted injuries with iron road and the

post-mortem report discloses that there were multiple injuries all

over the body other than the stab injuries. Hence, the petitioners

are not entitled for bail.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on

perusal of the material available on record, the Police have

invoked the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148

302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 35, 25(1)(B)(b)

of Arms Act since the deadly weapons are used by the

assailants. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that these two petitioners allegedly inflicted injury

with iron rod and no corresponding injuries. On perusal of the

post-mortem report, there were number of injuries and no

doubt, injury Nos.1 to 8 are the stab wound injuries and injury

Nos.9 and 10 are the multiple abrasion injuries all over the body

and the Court cannot segregate the same at the time of

considering the bail petition.

7. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh v. State of

Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4244,

categorically held that while considering the bail application, it is

required to be noted that all the accused are charged for the

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with

Section 149 of IPC. It is further observed that the individual role

of the accused is not required to be considered when they are

alleged to have been the part of the unlawful assembly.

8. Having considered the principles laid down in Kumer

Singh's case (supra), the very contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners cannot be accepted at this juncture. When

they have shared the common object and the specific overt act

allegation is also made against these two petitioners that they

have inflicted the injury with iron-rod, it is not a fit case to

exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in favour of

the petitioners.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*