IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. MOHAN N, S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT HULIMANGALA VILLAGE JIGANIHOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 105.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSKOTE P.S., BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Digitally signed HIGH COURT BUIDILNG by DEVIKA M BENGALURU – 560 001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF

2. CHANNAKESHAVA KARNATAKA S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT GANGAPURA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU – 562 122.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

14(A)2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024 ON 23.07.20252, TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.197/2024 REGISTERED BY HOSAKOTE P.S. BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 307, 109, 114, 120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT 2015 (POA), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.910/2024.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. 2. This is a successive criminal appeal filed by accused No.3. Earlier, this Court considered the appeal of this appellant vide judgment dated 17.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.530/2025. While rejecting the appeal, this Court taken note of the role played by this appellant and also made an observation that this appellant is the architect of the crime in committing the murder by taking supari and eliminated the deceased. This Court also taken note in paragraph No.7 that this appellant conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter, he himself took accused Nos.4 to 6 along with him, in order to implement the conspiracy and inflicted injury to the deceased with iron rod. There was recovery at the instance of this appellant, though it may be a joint recovery at the instance of other accused persons, the question of parity does not arise as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD V. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein the Apex Court held that while invoking the principles of parity, the Court has to take note of the overt-act of each of the accused.

3. Now, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that other accused persons have been enlarged on bail and also one of the accused has filed an application for discharge and the same is pending for consideration and charge is also not framed. The counsel also would submit that the appellant is in custody from last 1 year 3 months. Hence, he may be enlarged and bail.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State would submit that this Court while rejecting the bail petition in detail taken note of the material available on record and observation is made that the appellant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity, in view of the discussion made in the judgment of the Apex Court and the appellant has not made out any changed circumstance to enlarge him on bail.

5. Having considered the grounds urged by before this Court and also considering the overt-act allegation against this appellant and also the role played by this appellant, merely because he is in custody from 1 year 3 months, the same is not a ground to enlarge him on bail in a heinous offence of murder. No doubt, the counsel would submit that charge is not framed and one of the accused has filed an application for discharge, t