IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4616/2019 Between:
Mazar Khan S/o Abdul Sattar Khan Aged about 27 years R/at #18, I Main, I Cross, Gangondanahalli Chandra Layout Bengaluru-560 040. … Petitioner (By Sri Ram Singh. K, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka by Kalasipalya Police Station Bengaluru-560 002.
Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent (Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.226/2018 (S.C.No.1799/2018) of Kalasipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302 read with 149 of IPC and Section 27, 27(1) of Arms Act and etc., This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail in S.C. No.1799/2018 on the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (Crime No.226/2018 of Kalasipalya Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302 read with 149 of IPC and under Sections 27 and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the deceased was the son of the complainant. He was working in S.S. Pipe and Steel Shop in Bamboo Bazar, Bengaluru. On 31.07.2018 at about 9.30 p.m., when the deceased was having tea along with his friends, all of a sudden 8 to 10 persons chased the deceased behind Taj Hotel by holding deadly weapons. The friend of the deceased Harihar Das informed the same to the relative of the complainant, namely Mohammed Moin. The complainant and his children rushed to the spot, where they saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood in front of RAS Salman Steel Shop. Thereafter, the complaint has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 that under similar facts and circumstances, accused No.5 has been granted bail in Criminal Petition No.1119/2019. On the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that the name of the accused No.3 is not shown and only accused No.1 was apprehended. Then, thereafter accused No.3 has been arrested. He further submits that Test Identification Parade is also not been conducted to identify the accused No.3. He submitted that CW.10 is an eyewitness to the alleged incident but he has not specifically mentioned the name of the accused No.3 and since 03.08.2018 he is in judicial custody. It is his further submission that only on joint recovery, recover has been made at the instance of the accused No.3. He is ready to abide by the conditions and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the application and released the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that this is second application filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 and there are no changed circumstances to file fresh bail application. He further submitted that CW.10 is an eyewitness to the alleged incident, he has categorically stated about participation of petitioner/accused No.3 in a heinous offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further submitted that petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted with lethal weapons and because of the said injury the deceased died. It is his further submission that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may again indulge in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. A close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it would disclose that serious allegation is made as against accused Nos.1 to 5. Even on close reading of charge sheet material, it indicates that accused No.3 has assaulted the deceased with long and the deceased died due to the said injuries. Though the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1119/2019 was made available but with due respect appreciation of facts in the said case has not been placed on record by the learned counsel. In that light the said order has been passed and already this Court in Criminal Petition No.323/2019 C/w Criminal Petition No.1291/2019, while considering the bail petition of the petitioner/accused No.3 as well as accused No.6 has clearly observed that there are serious allegations as against petitioner/accused No.3 and even it has been observed that there are serious overt acts insofar as accused Nos.1 to 5 are concerned. This aspects has not been considered and appreciated by the Court and has granted the bail. The ground of parity is not applicable to the present petitioner is concerned and even there are no changed circumstances to reconsider the bail application filed by the petitioner/accused No.3. In the light of the discussion held by me, the Petition stands dismissed.
nms Sd/- JUDGE