Harish Singh @ Harish vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2016

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Harish Singh @ Harish vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2016

Bench: B. Sreenivase Gowda

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2016

                        :BEFORE:

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4816 OF 2016


BETWEEN:

HARISH SINGH @ HARISH,
S/O. HEERA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/O. OPP. SATYANARAYANA KALAYA MANTAPA,
60 FEET ROAD, J.C. NAGAR,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 086.             ... PETITIONER

       (By SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR P S,
BANGALORE.
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 01.             ... RESPONDENT

       (By SRI. B. J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)


     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C  BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.NO.160/2016 OF BASAVESHWARA
NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
143,147,148,307 AND 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
                             2



     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Petitioner in this petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeks to grant him bail in connection with Crime No.160/2016 of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 read with Sec.149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.

3. The brief allegations as could be seen from the FIR are that, on 22.04.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., when deceased Rajanna @ Pot Raja was standing at the courtyard of his house at Kamalanagar, Bangalore, asked the complainant to get the helmet to go out in his motorcycle. Accordingly, the complainant went inside the house and handed over the helmet to his brother deceased-Rajanna. At that time, Arjun-accused No.2, Ganesh-accused No.1 and Girish-accused No.3 came in 3 motorcycle along with three more persons and got down from their motorcycles and assaulted deceased-Rajanna on his head, neck, chest and other parts of the body with iron rods. As a result, deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died at the spot. Said accused persons also attempted to assault complainant but he escaped from them with minor injuries.

4. There are 11 accused persons in the case. The petitioner in this petition is accused No.8 and he is not named as accused in the FIR. One Babu, this petitioner and one R. Krishnamurthy were implicated to the case subsequently as accused Nos.7, 8 and 9 respectively. The allegations made against the petitioner and accused Nos.7 and 9 are one and the same. This Court has already granted bail to accused Nos.7 and 9 in Crl.P.No.4344/2016 and Crl.P.4211/2016 disposed of on 13.07.2016 and 01.07.2016 respectively.

5. In para No.3 of the said orders, it has been stated as under:-

"3. There is no whisper about the presence of this petitioner at the spot. The sessions Court has observed that during the course of investigation, the police have arrested as many as 11 accused persons and of course, it has also observed that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner and no recovery has been made from him. It is stated that the petitioner is an absentee conspirator with other accused persons. Drawing help from Section 149 of Cr.P.C., the sessions Court has rejected the bail petition. At this stage, as rightly observed by the learned counsel, except the voluntary statement of other accused persons, there is no material to show with regard to the conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused persons who have actually participated and assaulted the deceased. The said conspiracy has to be established beyond doubt during the full fledged trial. When the petitioner has not actually participated in the crime and he has been in judicial custody since long from the date of his arrest, I am of the opinion that considering all the circumstances and also the delay in concluding the trial before the trial Court, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail."

6. When the allegations against the petitioner and accused Nos.7 and 9 are one and the same and accused Nos.7 and 9 having been already released on bail, I do not see any reason as to why this petitioner should not be released on bail by applying principle of parity. Hence, the following:

ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Cr.No.160/2016 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the committal Court or the trial Court as the case may be;

ii) He shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted for any genuine cause by the trial Court.

iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE MGN/PMR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court