The specific overt-act allegation, role of the accused, and medical evidence are pivotal in deciding bail petitions for serious offences.

ORDER :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No. 100/2021 (C.C. No. 33673/2021) of Srirampura Police Station, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC and Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

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 there was a quarrel between the deceased and this petitioner one week prior to this incident. Similarly, there was a quarrel between accused No. 2 and the deceased also and both of them discussed with regard to the said incident and accused Nos. 1 and 2 conspired with each other to teach a lesson to the deceased in the shop belonging to C.W. 7 and also purchased a dagger. That on 04.09.2021 at around 7.00 p.m., when the victim went to consume alcohol in Srirampura jurisdiction belonging to accused No. 3, accused No. 2 went and quarreled with him and accused No. 1 was also along with him. With an intention to take away the life, accused No. 1 inflicted injury with the dagger near the private part of the victim, as a result, he has sustained injury to his left thigh and blood was oozing. The said fact was informed to accused No. 3 by accused No. 6 and accused No. 3 on the instructions of accused Nos. 4 and 5, dragged the injured and made him to lie on the footpath and due to the said injuries, he succumbed to the injuries and hence case has been registered, matter has been investigated and charge-sheet is also filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is accused No. 1 and though an allegation is made that he inflicted injury, only one injury is inflicted on the left side of the thigh and the same does not result in death, but the fact is that the victim was made to lie on the footpath and timely treatment was not provided to him, which led to his death. The learned counsel submits that there was no any intention to take away the life of the victim and at the most, it attracts Section 304 of IPC and not 302 of IPC. The learned counsel submits that accused Nos. 2 to 6 are already enlarged on bail. Though, C.W. 2 to C.W. 5 are the eye-witnesses according to the prosecution, their statements were recorded on the seventh day and thirteenth day of the incident and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody from 05.09.2021 and investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is also filed and no need of further custodial trial.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the allegation against other accused persons is that on the instructions of accused No. 3, accused Nos. 4 and 5, kept the injured outside the wine shop i.e., on the footpath. The specific overt-act allegation is made against this petitioner that he inflicted injury with the dagger, as a result, he had sustained injury and blood was oozing and recovery is made at the instance of the petitioner i.e., dagger. There are eye-witnesses to the incident i.e., C.W. 2 to C.W. 5. When there are eyewitnesses to the incident and the recovery is also made at the instance of this petitioner, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, granting of bail in favour of other accused cannot be a ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail and the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence as well as whether parity applies or not. 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 considered the bail on ground of parity with co-a