VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJI S/O LATE KANNAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY-20

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused 3 and 8 in Cr. No. 300/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 read with section 34 IPC. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 302, 201, 120B, 118 read with section 149 IPC. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Sessions Judge granted bail to accused no. 11 and accused no. 3 is similarly placed and therefore he is entitled for bail. So also the Sessions Judge granted bail to accused no. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 and accused no. 8 is similarly placed and therefore he is also entitled for bail. It is further contended that the statements of CW. 2 to CW. 4 do not implicate the petitioners as assailants. On the other hand, the statements of these witnesses specify that four unknown persons assaulted the victim. It is further contended that after the arrest of petitioners, no test identification parade is conducted. The petitioners are in judicial custody from 09.10.2011. Therefore, it is contended that petitioners are entitled for bail.

(2.) PER contra, Sri Chandramouli, learned State Public Prosecutor contends that in broad day light the petitioners and others committed diabolic murder. The accused have used longs, choppers, knives and caused grievous injuries on the face, chest, stomach and other parts of the body of the victim. Further the murder had taken place for supari. It is contended that prosecution is taking steps for cancellation of bail given by the Sessions Judge for some of the accused.

(3.) A perusal of the charge sheet specifies that accused are part of an organised crime. Accused no. 3 caused grievous injury to the deceased on his face and chest by using long. At the time of incident accused no. 8 was waiting near the spot in a motor bike. Immediately after the incident, accused no. 3 sat in the motor bike of accused no. 8 and they went away from the scene. Further it is seen that these two accused have committed an offence by accepting a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - each. The nature of crime, the weapons used, the active role played by these two accused and the money that they have accepted are the circumstances establishing a prima -facie case against them. The nature of crime is very heinous and against the society. Mere delay in commencing the trial and that there are certain technical defects in the investigation are not the grounds to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The contention of the petitioners that on parity they are entitled for bail is unacceptable to me. Firstly, the Sessions Judge without considering the allegations made in the charge sheet and the evidence granted bail to some of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that they are taking steps for cancellation of the bail order granted by the Sessions Judge in respect of other accused. In the circumstances, the principle of parity is not applicable in this case. For the reasons stated above, the petition is hereby dismissed.