An accused is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity if there is specific evidence against him.

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.214/2020

of Parappanna Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the

offences punishable under Sections 302, 115 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that when the

victim-deceased

complained

about

dog

barking

on

30.07.2019 against the assailants and went out to calm

down the dog and came back, again also the issue was

3

continued and he came out, at that time this petitioner

inflicted injury on the head of the victim and others also

caught hold of him and as a result of the injuries to the

vital part of head, victim succumbed to injuries and police

have investigated and filed charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits accused

Nos.1, 3 and 4 have already been granted bail and

petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

Learned counsel also brought to the notice of the court

Section 164 statement of Kumari Niranjani, who is 15

years old, has stated not only this petitioner assaulted but

other accused persons Ramesh and Bharath also inflicted

injuries and that they are already enlarged on bail and

hence this petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

5.

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the

State submits that eyewitnesses statement against this

petitioner that he inflicted injuries with deadly weapon on

the vital part of head and cause of death is on account of

head injury sustained and eyewitnesses are there who

4

have seen this petitioner committing murder and hence

parity will not arise and petitioner is not entitled for bail.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the State and

on perusal of the records, it reveals charges levelled

against this petitioner and other accused persons mainly

overt-act of inflicting of injuries with machhu that too to

the vital part of head and post mortem report also

discloses injury on the head and cause of death is on

account of head injury and specific overt-act is made

against this petitioner and taking note of 164 statement

wherein minor girl aged 15 years gave statement that

other accused persons also inflicted injury cannot be a

ground and case of the prosecution is specific that this

petitioner inflicted injury on the vital part of head and

when such being the case, nodoubt accused Nos.1, 3 and 4

were

granted

bail

and

while

granting

bail

in

Crl.P.No.353/2021 this court has made an observation that

in FIR wife of accused No.1 has not been shown as

5

accused but only stated that she was also present near the

seen of occurrence and she was watching the incident. In

Crl.P.No.3918/2021 this court while exercising discretion

held that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and

statements are recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and

overt-act of assaulting the victim with deadly weapon is

against accused No.2 and the only allegation against

accused No.3 is that he held the victim and hence

discretion is exercised. In Crl.P.No.4666/2021 this court

while exercising discretion held that the allegations made

against accused Nos.1 and 3 is that they caught hold of

the deceased while accused No.2 assaulted him which has

resulted in his death and while exercising discretion also

overt act of this petitioner has been stated in all the

petitions and hence petitioner is not entitled for bail on the

ground of parity and as contended mere filing of charge

sheet is not sufficient to come to conclusion that discretion

can be exercised in favour of this petitioner when there is

specific allegation of inflicting injury on the head and

because of head injury the victim succumbed.

6

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN