Karnataka High Court
Sharuq Khan @ Sharuq vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
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.1020/2022
BETWEEN:
SHARUQ KHAN @ SHARUQ
S/O SANAULLAKHAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/AT NO.517, 2ND CROSS
NEAR UKBA MASJID
BHARATH NAGAR
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 039. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.182/2020 OF SAMPIGEHALLI P.S., BENGALURU
(S.C.NO.915/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-69)) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
2
143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120B AND 201 R/W SECTION 149
OF IPC.
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. praying
to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail, in the event of his
arrest in respect of Crime No.182/2020 registered by
Sampigehalli Police Station, Sampigehalli Sub-Division,
Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
144, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 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 of the prosecution is
that due to previous ill-will, this petitioner along with other
accused persons have committed murder of victim mercilessly
and caused 37 injuries and this incident was also witnessed by
eye witnesses and the police after registration of the case,
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 and accused No.1 is
the father and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers of this
petitioner and entire family has been implicated in the matter.
The counsel would also submit that accused No.8 is enlarged on
bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.4173/2021 and investigation is
already completed and charge sheet is filed and there is no need
of custodial trial.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State would submit that C.Ws.2, 3,
7 and 11 are the eye witnesses. Apart from that, he would also
submit that mercilessly, attack was made by this petitioner, who
is also part of unlawful assembly and shared the common object
and inflicted injury with deadly weapon and the weapon was also
seized at the instance of this petitioner and the question of
parity does not arise against this petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material collected by the Investigating Officer, due
to prior enmity, mercilessly, attack was made. On perusal of the
post mortem report, it is seen that the cause of death is also on
account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries
sustained. On perusal of the post mortem report, it is seen that
almost all the injuries are chopped wound injuries obliquely
placed and so also the incised wound and it is nothing but a
blood thirsty.
7. Having taken note of the gravity of the offence and
also the manner in which he committed the murder and recovery
is also made at the instance of this petitioner and also when
there is a direct evidence that the petitioner is part of unlawful
assembly and shared the common intention, it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of
the petitioner.
8. The Apex Court also, in the judgment in the case of
KUMER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER
reported in 2021 (6) SCJ 227, in paragraph No.14 observed
that, 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 the IPC. At this stage, 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.
9. In respect of the parity is concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the parity has to be
applied since, accused No.8 is enlarged on bail, who is similarly
placed and joint recovery was made at the instance of this
petitioner and accused No.8. 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 regarding exercising of parity is concerned,
observed that, in deciding the aspect of parity, the Court has to
be take note of the role attached to the accused, their position in
relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost
importance and the manner in which the incident has taken
place and while applying the principle of parity, the Court cannot
exercise its power in capricious manner and has to consider the
totality of circumstances before granting bail. The Apex Court
having taken note of the seriousness and gravity of the offence
and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction,
cancelled the bail granted by the High Court, in coming to the
conclusion that granting of bail is nothing but an order passed by
the High Court and it amounts to a perverse order.
10. Hence, having taken note of the factual aspects of
the case, the question of parity does not arise and the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is not a precedent to this Court
to exercise the discretion while considering the bail petition of
this petitioner.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
