Shashikiran K A @ Munna vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7781 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3799/2022

BETWEEN:

1.     SHASHIKIRAN K.A. @ MUNNA,
       S/O LATE K.S. ANAND,
       S/O LATE BABU SHETTY,
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
       R/A NO.MALAMBI POST,
       SHANVIARASANTHE HOBLI,
       SOMVARPET TALUK,
       KODAGU DISTRICT-571231.

2.     GANESH RAO @ RAO,
       S/O LATE SANJEEV RAO,
       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
       R/A KUKKERA BETTU,
       PUTTUR TALUK,
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
       PRESENTLY R/A NO.46/3,
       1ST FLOOR, 8TH A CROSS,
       ANEPALYA, BENGALURU CITY.           ...PETITIONERS

           (BY SRI MADAV KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR
             SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CUBBONPARK POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                 2



DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.                                ...RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.604/2021 (CR.NO.86/2020) OF CUBBON PARK P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302, 201, 114, 120B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3, 4, 25(1B)(b) AND 27 OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE
OF THE LXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
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 in S.C.No.604/2021 (Crime

No.86/2020) of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, for

the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 114, 120B,

read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 25(1B)(b) and 27 of Arms

Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

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

that accused No.1 was having grudge against the victim and

hence he gave supari to accused No.2 to kill the victim and in

turn, accused No.2 engaged the services of accused Nos.3 to 7

for committing the murder. Accordingly, they conspired with

each other and committed the murder of the victim. The case

has been registered against the petitioners and investigation is

conducted and charge-sheet is also filed against the petitioners

and other accused persons.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

though an allegation is made that supari was given to accused

No.2, no material is collected and accused No.2 was not present

at the scene of occurrence and also there is a recovery of car as

well as button knife at the instance of the petitioners and the

same is done with an intention to implicate the petitioners and

no other material is placed before the Court with regard to

accused No.2 is concerned. The learned counsel submits that

though an allegation is made that accused No.5 was in the place

of incident, no overt-act allegation is made against him and

these two petitioners are in custody from 2020 and investigation

has been completed and charge-sheet is also filed. The learned

counsel submits that this Court has already granted bail in

favour of accused No.6 in Cr.P.No.3866/2021 and accused No.7

in Crl.P.No.8994/2021 and hence these petitioners are also

entitled for bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that accused

No.2 only took supari from accused No.1 and he had purchased

the machete and button knife and the same are handed over to

the assailants and apart from that, he was near by the place of

incident and he was monitoring over the phone and CDR records

also reveals that accused No.2 was having nexus with other

accused persons. The learned counsel submits that accused

No.5 was very much present at the scene of occurrence and

blood stained cloth of the petitioner was seized and he had

purchased 5 sims and the said sims are used by accused No.2 to

commit the murder and statement of C.W.40 and C.W.41 is also

recorded with regard to purchase of sims. When these

materials are collected and when there was a recovery of

machete, button knife and also santro car from accused No.2

and also sims are seized, which were used for committing the

murder, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners. The

learned counsel submits that granting of bail in favour of

accused Nos.6 and 7 will not come to the aid of the petitioners.

The allegation made against accused No.6 is that he was in

touch with accused No.2 and other than that, no recovery and

accused No.7 was granted bail on the ground that accused No.6

was already granted bail.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State, the very case of the prosecution is that

accused No.1 was having motive to commit the murder and

hence he gave supari to accused No.2 and accused No.2 in order

to execute the said conspiracy made with accused No.1,

purchased the machete and button knife and the same are

seized and apart from that car was also seized, which was used

for committing the murder. Accused No.5 also purchased five

sims and using of sims and tower location is collected by the

Investigating Officer. C.W.40 and C.W.41 have given the

statement with regard to purchase of sims and when these

material are available before the Court with regard to very

involvement of accused No.2 that he had monitored the incident

of committing the murder along with other accused persons and

also purchased the weapons, which were used for committing

the murder, there is prima facie case against these two

petitioners and granting of bail in favour of accused Nos.6 and 7

in other petitions is not a ground to enlarge the petitioners on

bail and the over-act allegation and the very role of the

petitioners is distinct from accused Nos.6 and 7.

7. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of

RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI

MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC

230, has held that while applying the principle of parity, the

Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has

to consider totality of circumstances before granting bail. Parity

while granting bail must focus upon role of the 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. In deciding aspect of parity, role

attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident

and victims is of utmost importance and hence it is not a fit case

to invoke the parity as held by the Apex Court since very

involvement of these petitioners are supported by the material

collected by the Investigating Officer.

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

following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that the

Trial Court shall not be influenced by the order passed by this

Court while considering the matter on merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD