IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8523 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

AVULA KONDAIAH S/O. AVULA SUBANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT. 3-149-1144-1 LAKSHMISAGAR, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDRA PRADESH - 517 001 …PETITIONER Digitally (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N., ADVOCATE)

signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY AND:

Location:

High Court of Karnataka THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BATLAHALLI.P.S.

REP: BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL UNDER SEC.439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IN (CR.NO.16/2023) SPL.C.NO.35/2023 OF BATLAHALLI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(B) OF NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking his enlargement on regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985.

2. Heard Sri. Narayanaswamy K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is accused No.2. The petitioner along with the other accused gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.16/2023 for the aforesaid offence. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the accused, which was pending before the concerned Court as Spl.C.No.35/2023. Since the petitioner was not available for trial at the relevant point in time, the case was split as Spl.C.No.79/2023. Accused No.1 applies for a regular bail and Court of Session in terms of its order dated 05.06.2023 enlarges accused No.1 on bail. The sole reason that the bail was not granted to this petitioner was that a sword of non-bailable warrant was hanging on his head, as he was not available before the concerned Court at the relevant point in time. With that being the only reason for not granting bail, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity of accused No.1 being enlarged on bail. The Apex Court while discussing the law of grant of bail on parity in the case of SAGAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 12025 SCC OnLine SC 2584, has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

11. It is clear from the perusal of the above factors that the High Court failed to consider all that was relevant. On parity, it is necessary to refer to Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. VishanbhaiHirabhai Makwana(Koli) [(2021) 6 SCC 230]. This Court observed that while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because another accused person was granted bail in connection with the same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter of right. [See also: Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486]; Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal [2024 SCC OnLine SC

374].

…. …. ….

13. In an attempt to clarify the position of law qua parity as a ground, we may refer to certain judgments of the High Court to appreciate whether there is convergence or divergence of opinion/understanding.

13.1. The Allahabad High Court in Nanha v. State of U.P.[1992 SCC OnLine All 871], observed as under:—

24. My answer to the points referred to us is that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage of second or third or subsequent bail applications when the bail applications of the co-accused whose bail application had been earlier rejected are allowed and co-accused i