IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8742 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI CHAMPUKUTTI @ KUTTI S/O. SRI MURUGAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.330, 7TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS KAVERINAGAR, B.S.K. II STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHANKUMAR D. FOR SRI PRADEEP C.S., ADVOCATES) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.49/2018 (S.C.NO.1357/2018) OF SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.143, 342, 364A, 384, 120B, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The allegations made against the accused are that they had kidnapped Sri Mohan.R for a ransom of a sum of `.40,00,000/-. However, the complainant could able to arrange a sum of `10,50,000/-. The present petitioner is accused No.1 in the present case.
2. Admittedly, the earlier similar petition of present petitioner filed before this Court in Crl.P.No.5047/2018 came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated 03.10.2018 on its merit. As such, except considering the change in circumstance if any, the merits of the case need not be re-appreciated again for the purpose of considering this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that this Court has granted bail to three other accused in the same crime in Crl.P.No.4598/20118 on 09.07.2018, in Crl.P.No.4698/2018 on 10.07.2018 and in Crl.P.No.4855/2018 on 13.08.2018. As such, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in his submissions submitted that a large quantity of money and also a cell phone of the kidnapped person had been recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Further, the alleged kidnapped person has identified the accused. Therefore, there are prima facie and cogent evidence to implicate accused No.1/petitioner in the alleged crime. This Court earlier has rightly rejected his bail petition and that in the absence of any change in circumstance, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. The prosecution claims of having made recovery of a large sum of money and a cell phone from the present petitioner during the course of investigation. However the enlargement of other three co-accused in the same crime by this Court as observed above, were of earlier to the rejection of similar petition of the present petitioner by this Court in Crl.P.No.5047/2018 on 03.10.2018. Therefore, the question of alleged parity and enlargement of other co-accused in that matters have already been considered in the previous petition of the present petitioner in Crl.P.No.5047/2018. As such, the enlargement of the co-accused which was a past event even prior to the disposal of Crl.P.No.5047/2018, cannot be considered as a changed circumstance for considering the present petition.
6. In that scenario, since similar petition of the petitioner was rejected once on merit and in the absence of change in circumstance, I do not find any merit in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE HJ