DILEEP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge him on bail.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under;

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this Court on earlier occasion in Crl.Pet.No.201554/2019 dated 19.02.2020 were pleased to grant bail to some of the accused and rejected so far as the other accused concerned. Further submitted that on previous occasion while enlarging some of the petitioners on bail, it was alleged regarding involvement of the other accused who are the petitioners No.6 to 18 in the said petition and their role if any in the alleged incident can be ascertained during the trial. Therefore, on that ground pleased to grant bail to the petitioners therein and whatever the overtact alleged is depicted on the first information statement so far as other petitioners are concerned the petition is rejected. Therefore, submitted that the present petitioner is accused No.6 and who is also standing on the same footing as that of the other accused who were granted bail in the said criminal petition (stated supra) since there is no overtact alleged against this petitioner and the eye witnesses in their statement have not stated the role and overtact of the petitioner herein. The petitioner would abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, on the ground of parity prayed enlargement of the petitioner on bail.