IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Chetan @ Chetankumar S/o Late Shivanna M.L. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.6745 of 2023
Decided on : 29-08-2023
BAIL - Criminal Law - [No specific act-section referred] - The court rejected the successive bail petition filed by accused Nos.5 and 6, emphasizing the specific allegations made against them and the nature of the injuries sustained. The court considered the previous bail orders and the principle of parity, but concluded that the specific overt acts and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victims did not warrant bail.
ORDER :
Heard the petitioners counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This is a successive bail petition filed by accused Nos.5 and 6 and these petitioners earlier have approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.10186/2021 and this Court has rejected the bail petition vide order dated 14.1.2022 and in paragraph No.6 of the judgment while rejecting the bail petition made an observation that when the specific allegations are made against these two accused persons that they have inflicted injury with the handle of the spade as well as wooden stick and taking note of the factual aspects of bail granted in favour of other accused persons, which has been referred supra, the allegation against them is that they assaulted with their hands and the same is found in column No.17 and when such being the factual aspects of the case, it cannot be held that the petitioners are entitled for bail on the ground of parity.
3. Now fresh petition is filed on the ground of parity again and though made the ground on merits and counsel mainly contend that similar allegations made against accused No.4 and he has been granted bail in Criminal Petition No.5511/2022 contending that these petitioners are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The counsel referred the said order wherein prosecution case is not discussed and only extracted the order of Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 and in paragraph No.5 comes to the conclusion that the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021 dated 10.12.2021 on the ground of parity is entitled for bail on the ground that most of the accused have already been enlarged on bail.
4. The counsel also on questioning him whether he has got a copy in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021, since the bail is granted based on the said order, produced the same before the Court i.e. in respect of accused Nos.3 and 8, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court made an observation that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also filed and some of the accused are also enlarged on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioners are also entitled for bail, as the main accused No.1 who caused the injury said to be committed death of the decease and the same is taken on record.
5. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that when the accused No.4 has been granted bail and similar allegations made against these petitioners also, they may be enlarged on bail. The counsel also would contend that except accused Nos.1, 5 and 6, all are enlarged on bail and hence these petitioners may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would contend that in the said order the Co-ordinate Bench has not discussed anything about the overt act of accused No.4 and specific overt act is made against him that he inflicted injury with the heavy wooden pound and when the same is not discussed in the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, the same cannot be relied upon to extend the benefit of parity. The counsel also vehemently contend that accused Nos.3 and 8 who have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Petition No.8964/2021, an observation is made that accused No.1 who caused the injury said to be committed death of the deceased and also not discussed anything about the role of accused Nos.3 and 8 in the said order also and hence the said order also cannot be relied upon to grant the bail on the ground of parity.
7. The counsel would vehemently contend that in column No.17 of the charge sheet specific overt act allegation is made against these two petitioners that they inflicted injury with wooden stick and also the handle of the spade and also there were 13 multiple injuries and cause of death is also on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader also would contend that bamboo wooden stick, heavy round wooden pound and moderately heavy round wooden club are seized
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230
The court cannot grant bail on the ground of parity if the specific overt acts and the severity of the injuries sustained do not warrant bail.
Bail – Parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted – Court, while granting bail, has to consider a number of aspects – While utilizing parity as a ground for bail, same must focus on r....
Point of law : discretion for grant of bail must be exercised cautiously while considering the bail petitions of the nature being dealt with.
The principle of parity in bail applications requires careful consideration of the accused's specific role and circumstances, rather than being an absolute basis for granting bail.
In cases where accused persons are alleged to have shared a common intention under Section 149 of IPC, individual roles may not be required to be considered for granting bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.