Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 812 (KAR)

Ameed v. State Of Karnataka

2020-04-16

G.NARENDAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader Sri. P. Thejesh. 2. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution, the petitioner had moved a fresh petition and that this court disposed off the said petition by granting liberty to prefer an application for recalling the order dismissing the instant petition for default. In that view of the matter, the learned High Court Govt. Pleader does not canvass any objection for recalling the order. Accordingly, the submission is placed on record. I.A. for recalling the order dated 05.11.2019 and for condonation of delay are allowed. The delay of 98 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, I.A. 1/2020 is allowed. The order dated 05.11.2019 dismissing the petition for default is recalled and the petition is restored to file of this court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench passed in Crl.P. No.7721/2019 whereby, this court by order dated 10.12.2019 has been pleased to enlarge the second accused on bail on the terms and conditions imposed therein and prays that petitioner be enlarged on bail. The nature of allegations leveled against both the accused is one and the same and hence the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is also entitled for relief on the grounds of parity. 6. The respondent-police have laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 in connection with Crime No.1/2019 of Gundlupete Police Station, Chamarajanagara for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased and the accused persons were known to each other on 01.01.2019 in lieu of New Year, the deceased had come to his village. Accused persons and deceased had been to Anupama Bar and Restaurant and started quarreling on the ground that the deceased has not given party to the accused persons in lieu of New Year. They quarreled with each other and they went out from the said Bar and Restaurant. Accused persons and deceased had been to Anupama Bar and Restaurant and started quarreling on the ground that the deceased has not given party to the accused persons in lieu of New Year. They quarreled with each other and they went out from the said Bar and Restaurant. After some time, again, the accused quarreled with deceased and have assaulted the deceased with their hands and kicked him with legs, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries. 8. On perusal of Post Mortem report, it is not clearly stated as to what was the real cause for death. But it is stated that death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of blunt injury to abdomen with consequent injury to liver with consequent abdominal hemorrhage. The nature of allegations and facts of the case discloses that it is a sudden fight took place between the accused persons and deceased. Whether there was any intention to kill the deceased or to teach him a lesson or incident took place to cause bodily injury or such assault is sufficient to cause the death of the person, has to be proved during the course of full dressed trial in order to ascertain whether the offence falls under Section 302 or 304 of IPC. 9. The allegations against both the accused are one and the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the petitioner is also entitled for a similar relief on the ground of parity. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader would fairly admit the same and submit that no appeal is preferred as against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P. 7721/2019. In the opinion of this court the instant petition also requires to be granted on the ground of parity. Hence, the following: ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner-accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.1/2019 of Gundlupete Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, subject to 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 sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of. The office to show the name of Sri. S.A. Ahmed appearing for the petitioner.