Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mervin Charles @ Prabhu vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9375
CRL.P No. 11654 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11654 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI MERVIN CHARLES @ PRABHU,
S/O AMALANANDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A NO.37, E.T. BLOCK,
OORIGAUM POST, KGF-53120.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI T. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION,
KGF.
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU - 560001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI DIWAKAR K. MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.90/2021 (S.C.NO.15/2022) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
- ROBERTSONPET POLICE, PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF) BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITION AS
THE HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9375
CRL.P No. 11654 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
2. This Court earlier considered the bail petition of
this petitioner along with other accused in
Crl.P.No.1916/2022 and rejected the same vide order dated
03.06.2022. This Court while rejecting the petition, in
paragraph No.7 taken note of that this petitioner and other
accused person assaulted the victim and inflicted injuries.
The prosecution case against the two petitioners is that they
chased the victim and inflicted injuries to C.W.1, but injuries
though are grievous in nature, C.W.1 is out of danger and has
been discharged from the hospital. This Court also
considered 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, wherein the Apex Court
observed with regard to sharing of common object and
inflicting the injuries in paragraph No.14 of the said
judgment. This Court also taken note of the fact that assault
NC: 2024:KHC:9375
was made and C.W.1 sustained grievous injuries while
rescuing the victim.
3. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that this Court granted bail in favour of accused
Nos.10 and 11 in Crl.P.No.3213/2023 and in
Crl.P.No.10598/2023 and the Court comes to the conclusion
that the petitioner assaulted the complainant with club and
caused him grievous injuries. This Court having granted bail
in favour of accused No.10, granted bail to accused No.11 on
the ground of parity.
4. On perusal of the order passed by this Court, a
reference is made that they assaulted the complainant, but
they have not assaulted the complainant. The records
discloses that, that is the allegation against C.W.2 and the
material are not considered by the Court. Apart from that,
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not considered the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh
(supra). Hence, the question of parity does not arise.
5. The learned counsel submits that the injured
C.W.1, to whom this petitioner has inflicted injuries, has
NC: 2024:KHC:9375
turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
The allegation against this petitioner is that he inflicted
injuries with iron road. When this Court has already
considered the judgment of the Apex Court in rejecting the
bail petition earlier referring the case of Kumer Singh
(supra), the question of now considering the ground of parity
does not arise.
6. The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN
RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI)
AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, held with
regard to exercising the ground of parity. The Court has to
take note of the very participation and inflicting of injuries
and take note of the very intention and object in inflicting the
injuries. The case against this petitioner is that all of them
have chased the victim and when C.W.1 came to rescue the
victim, at that time, he inflicted injuries with iron road on
C.W.1. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner when there
are no any changed circumstances and the Trial Court has to
appreciate the evidence of C.W.1 and other witnesses while
considering the matter. This Court cannot usurp the
NC: 2024:KHC:9375
jurisdiction of the Trial Court for appreciation of evidence and
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot
be accepted.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to
dispose of the matter within six months from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
