Karnataka High Court
Narayaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2239 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133.
2. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133.
3. HARISH,
S/O ASHWATHAPPA,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
signed by R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
MALATESH NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KC KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133.
Location: ...APPELLANTS
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VEMAGAL POLICE, KOLAR TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. PRAVEEN R,
S/O RAMAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024
R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
NARASAPURA HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M.C. VENKAT RANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2024
PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.12/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.
DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (CR.NO.98/2024 OF
VEMAGAL P.S.)
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for the
appellants, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. M.C.Venkat
Rangaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The appeal is filed by accused Nos.11, 13 and 15 in
Special SC.No.12/2024.
3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal
of the present appeal are as under :
In column No.17 of the charge sheet filed in the case, it
has been mentioned that there were quarrels between accused
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
No.1 and Sri. Ambareesh (deceased) about two years earlier to
the alleged incident in the present case and in pursuance of the
said previous enmity, on 02.05.2024 at about 10:15.pm., after
CW-1 finished his work and was moving near Safe Express
Company, driver of the tractor came on the left side suddenly
and there was an attempt to take his life. Thereafterwards, all
the accused persons, including the present accused persons
holding the weapons, came near the house of the accused and
took up the quarrel and assaulted Sri. Ambareesh and
ultimately, Sri. Ambareesh lost his life. Based on the complaint
lodged by the complainant, Police filed charge sheet for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307,
323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and also under the provisions of
Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989.
4. After the charge sheet, presence of the accused
persons were secured and they were sent to judicial custody.
Learned Special Judge took cognizance and the attempt made
by the present appellants to get them enlarged on bail was
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
rejected by the learned Special Judge by order dated
21.09.2024. Thereafter, the appellants are before this Court.
5. Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for the
appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum contended that the present appellants have been
falsely implicated in the incident and similarly placed accused
Nos.14 and 16 were granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court and therefore, the present appellants are also
entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
6. Per contra, Sri. Chennappa Erappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and
Sri. M.C.Venkatrangaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposes the bail grounds and contends that this Court has
rejected the bail for accused Nos.4 to 6 and therefore, the
question of parity in granting the bail to the present appellants
on the ground that accused Nos.14 and 16 have been granted
bail by the Co-ordinate Bench by this Court, cannot be
countenanced in law.
7. They also contended that there are eye witnesses to
the incident and their statement is to be considered for the
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
limited purpose of appreciating the case of the parties wherein,
the eye witnesses have specifically taken the names of the
present appellants and their individual overt acts in the death
of Sri. Ambareesh and therefore, bail is to be rejected.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in
detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly
the complaint averments would reveal that the complainant
was not personally aware of the incident and he has revealed
the names of accused Nos.1 to 10 at the first instance.
Therefore, FIR came to be lodged against accused Nos.1 to 10
at the first instance.
10. After registering the complaint, the Investigation
Officer, who is of the rank of Dy.S.P., thoroughly investigated
the matter inter alia recorded the statements of the eye
witnesses and thereafter, apprehended accused Nos.11 to 16
on the basis of the voluntarily statements said to have been
given by accused No.1. Subsequent thereto, based on the
other material available on record, the Investigating Officer
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
apprehended the present appellants along with accused Nos.14
and 16 and filed the charge sheet.
11. Attempt made by the present appellants to seek the
grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge on
the ground that there are materials on record in the form of
statements of the eye witnesses whereby, prima facie materials
are found in the case, including the number of injuries found on
the body of Sri. Ambareesh.
12. Fact remains that similarly placed accused Nos.14
and 16 have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court after notifying the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
13. It is submitted on behalf of the de-facto complainant
and learned High Court Government Pleader that they did not
appeal against the order granting the bail for accused Nos.14
and 16.
14. This Court, under such circumstances, perused the
material on record to find out whether the test of parity would
be applicable insofar as the present appellants are concerned,
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
in view of the fact that accused Nos.14 and 16 have been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
15. On such exercise being carried out, there is
sufficient force in the argument putforth on behalf of the
appellants that the present appellants stand on the same
footing as that of the accused Nos.14 and 16, who have been
enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
16. Fact that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
rejecting the bail request to accused Nos.4 to 6 cannot come in
the way of applying the test of parity in view of the fact that
the role assigned to accused Nos.4 to 6 and the present
appellants are altogether different.
17. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the matter as it may hamper the rights of the parties
during the trial one way or the other, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present appellants are also to be
enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the
following :
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:1576
ii) Appellants, who are accused Nos.11, 13 and
15 are directed to be enlarged on bail on
executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
iii) The appellants shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv) The appellants shall attend the Court
regularly.
v) The appellants shall not leave the
jurisdiction of Kolar District without prior
permission.
Violation of any one of the condition would entitle the
prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
PHM
CT: BHK
