The court ruled that accused not directly involved in a crime may be entitled to bail based on parity with co-accused and excessive duration of custody without trial progression.

ORDER :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

1. This petition is filed by accused No. 11 under Section 439 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C. No. 1416/2021 (crime No. 156/2021 of Koramangala Police Station) registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35, 37 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-B), 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 pending on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned SPP II for respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that earlier petitioner had filed petitions seeking bail and they have been rejected. The accusation against the petitioner is that he intimated the movement of the deceased to the other accused who killed the deceased. Petitioner was not on the spot at the time of incident. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were present at the spot have been granted bail on the ground that they were not holding any weapons at the time of alleged offence. Eye witnesses, namely, C.W.1 to C.W.3, C.W.18, C.W.19, C.W.20 have been examined. In the charge sheet totally 111 witnesses are cited and out of them some witnesses are examined and remaining 80 more witnesses are to be examined. Prosecution is dragging on the trial. Petitioner is in custody since more than 4-½ years and there is delay in completing the trial. Petitioner has not contributed for the delay in trial. Accused No. 10 was the main accused and he has been granted bail on the ground that he was in judicial custody at the time of incident even though he had conspired to kill the deceased. Earlier there was a direction by this Court to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis as per order dated 30.10.2024 and subsequently it has been relaxed on 02.06.2025. Prosecution is not keeping the witnesses present on the date of trial and dragging on the trial. Prosecution is not serious in concluding the trial. Earlier petitioner had sought bail on the ground of parity as accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were similarly placed to that of this petitioner had been granted bail, but, said ground of parity was not considered. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned SPP II would contend that the petitioner has suppressed that he had filed another petition in Crl.P. No. 11080/2024 which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.10.2024 and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of suppression of facts. Grounds raised in the present petition have already been urged in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner. Earlier petitioner had filed Crl.P. Nos. 7531/2021, 4060/2022, 13269/2023 and 11080/2024 and they came to be disposed of by orders dated 29.11.2021, 12.09.2022, 26.03.2024 and 30.10.2024 respectively. Petitioner had earlier urged ground of parity in Crl.P. No. 13269/2023. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 10 are alleged to have committed offence under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000. Delay in concluding the trial is due to lengthy cross-examination by the accused persons. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were granted bail were not holding weapons and on that ground they were granted bail. Prosecution requires atleast one more year to conclude the trial. On these grounds he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

6. Petitioner is accused No. 11 and he is in custody since 28.07.2021. Petitioner earlier had filed the following petitions which came to be dismissed: