Karnataka High Court
Shaik Barkath @ Bablu vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
CRL.P No. 587 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.587 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHAIK BARKATH @ BABLU,
S/O LATE SHAIK ABDUL,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.336, 2ND FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
SIDDIQ MAZID OPPOSITE ROAD,
GANGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560039.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEVARAJA M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION ,
Location: HIGH CHANDRA LAYOUT,
COURT OF BENGALURU CITY -560040.
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.75/2021 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S., BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 148,
323, 302, 307 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4,
25(1b)(b) OF ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIX
-2-
CRL.P No. 587 of 2023
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-60) IN S.C.NO.1134/2021.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
2. This petition is a successive bail petition filed by
the petitioner/accused No.1 and earlier he had approached
this Court by filing Crl.P.No.7424/2021 and this Court taken
note of that accused No.1 along with other accused persons
inflicted injury with machu against the victim as well as
C.W.2, who had sustained injuries. C.W.2 is an eye-
witness to the incident who had suffered injuries and other
witnesses have also witnessed the incident. There were 21
injuries on the victim in terms of post mortem report and a
brutal attack was made against the victim and these
injuries are chopped wound injuries. This Court taking note
of the statement of eye-witnesses C.W.11 to C.W.13
rejected the bail petition vide order dated 05.01.2022,
CRL.P No. 587 of 2023
wherein also considered the ground of parity referring the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMESH
BHAVAN RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI
MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6
SCC 230. The petitioner once again approached this Court
in Crl.P.No.4068/2022 and the same was rejected on
30.05.2022, wherein it is observed that the matter was
already considered on merits and also taken note of the
injured statement of C.W.2 and also the statement of eye-
witnesses C.W.11 to C.W.13 and rejected the bail petition.
Now the third petition is filed before this Court on the
ground that accused No.3 is enlarged on bail and the
allegation against him is that he also inflicted injury along
with this petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the order passed by the Trial Court in
S.C.No.1134/2021 granting bail in favour of accused No.3
and prays this Court to grant bail in favour of the petitioner
on the ground of parity. Though the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that accused No.3 is not entitled for bail on
CRL.P No. 587 of 2023
the ground of parity, as he is suffering from acute
appendicitis he is entitled for bail and granted bail on
medical ground. The learned counsel submits that the
petitioner is in custody from 27.03.2021 and hence he may
be granted bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that
this is the third successive bail petition and no changed
circumstance is made out and apart from that, the
petitioner is the main accused and he inflicted injury with
machu along with other assailants and cause of death is on
account of multiple i.e., 21 injuries found on the victim.
The learned counsel submits that C.W.2 is also an injured
witness and this Court while rejecting the bail petition
taken note of the material against the petitioner and in the
absence of changed circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled for bail.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
CRL.P No. 587 of 2023
appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of
the material available on record, this Court rejected two
bail petitions on merits in Crl.P.No.7424/2021 and
Crl.P.No.4068/2022 and while rejecting the earlier bail
petitions taken note of there are eye-witnesses to the
incident i.e., C.W.11 to C.W.13. The injured witness is
C.W.2 and there are direct evidence against the petitioner
and also recovery is made at the instance of the petitioner
and seized articles were sent to FSL and FSL report is also
positive and hence there are no changed circumstances.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order
passed by the Trial Court granting bail in favour of accused
No.3 and the same is not granted on merits and it is only
on medical ground. The Trial Court formed an opinion that
accused No.3 is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity
and this Court also taken note of the principles laid down in
the judgment reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein it is
held that while applying the principle of parity, the Court
cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has
to consider totality of the circumstances before granting
CRL.P No. 587 of 2023
bail. When specific allegation is made against the
petitioner that he inflicted injury on the vital part of head
and face and found 21 injuries, it is not a case for
considering the successive bail petition in the absence of
changed circumstances.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
