Case Note & Summary
The criminal petition arose from a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by accused Nos. 4 to 7 in Crime No. 15 of 2019 registered by Kota Police Station, Udupi, for offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and criminal conspiracy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case originated from a land dispute between the complainant, Lohith Poojari, and accused No. 1, Rajshekar Reddy, over the digging of mud for a lavatory near the complainant's well. On 26 January 2019, after a verbal altercation, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioners, forming an unlawful assembly armed with swords and choppers, followed the complainant and his brother to their house. They attacked Bharath, a friend of the complainant, causing fatal injuries, and when Yathish and the complainant intervened, they were also assaulted. Bharath and Yathish died, and the complainant and two others sustained injuries. The petitioners were arrested and had been in judicial custody since February 2019. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the Sessions Court dismissed their bail application, leading to the present petition. The petitioners argued that they were innocent, the main allegations were against accused Nos. 1 to 3, their role was comparable to that of accused No. 8 who had been granted bail by the same court, petitioner No. 1 was a student, and the investigation was complete. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime, active participation of the petitioners in the double murder, recovery of talwar and iron rods from accused Nos. 5 to 7 on their voluntary statements, and the risk of tampering with witnesses. The court, after examining the material, found that the petitioners actively participated in the assault with deadly weapons, the offence was punishable with death or life imprisonment, and there was sufficient evidence including witness identification and recoveries. The court held that parity with accused No. 8 was not available because his name was not in the FIR or witness statements, unlike the petitioners. The likelihood of tampering and commission of similar offences also weighed against bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Grant of bail in heinous offences - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - Court may deny bail where the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the material on record shows active participation of the accused in the commission of the offence; likelihood of tampering with prosecution witnesses is a relevant factor - Held that the petitioners are not entitled to bail given the double murder, injuries to the complainant and witnesses, recovery of weapons, and possibility of tampering (Paras 5, 7-9). B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Parity with co-accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - Parity cannot be claimed when the role attributed to the co-accused who was granted bail was significantly lesser; where the petitioners' overt acts included assault with deadly weapons and their names were in the FIR and statements of eye-witnesses, parity with accused No. 8 (whose name was not in the FIR or witness statements) is not applicable - Held that the ground of parity is not available to the petitioners (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners (accused Nos. 4 to 7) should be released on regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the offences and their roles, and whether they are entitled to parity with co-accused No. 8 who was granted bail.
Final Decision
Criminal Petition No. 2072 of 2020 is dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled to bail.
Law Points
- bail in heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment
- parity not applicable when role differs
- likelihood of tampering with witnesses
- recovery of weapons based on voluntary statements
- consideration of material in charge-sheet
