- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200704 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI VAKEELA DULLAYYA S/O KARI BHEEMANNA, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: VAKEELA WORK, R/O. MIRJAPURU VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST.RAICHUR …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH IDAPANUR POLICE STATION, TQ. AND DIST.RAICHUR – 584 140, R/BY ADDL. SPP KALABURAGI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ARATI PATIL ,HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 IN S.C.22/2025 (IDAPANUR P.S. CRIME NO.67/2024 DISTRICT RAICHUR) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECS.189(2), 191(2), 191(3), Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 61(2)(a), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 103(1), 352, 351(3) AND 190 OF BNS-2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, RAICHUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. This is a successive bail request of accused No.2/petitioenr in respect of Crime No.67/2024, registered by Idapanur Police Station, Yeragera Circle, Raichur District. 3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: One of the injured in an ugly incident that took place on 14.09.2024, one of the injured by name Amaresh S/o. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 Bheemanna lodged a written complaint with the Idapanur Police, which was registered in Crime No.67/2024 on 15.09.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 103(1), 352, 351(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023. 4. The gist of the complaint averments would reveal that present petitioner and 20 others formed an unlawful assembly on 14.09.2024 and in furtherance of the previous enmity, when the complainant party had been to burial ground for the purpose of cremation of Tayamma W/o. Guntanagappa, and were returning to their respective houses, all the accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant group and without any provocation, started assaulting the members of the complainant group mercilessly with deadly weapons. 5. The individual overt-acts are also spelt out by the injured and other witnesses. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the specific overt-act is that he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 took a wooden reaper and assaulted on the head of Bheemesh. Police after registering the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The matter is now pending before the Sessions Court at Raichur. Present petitioner, who is accused No.2 approached the District Court for grant of bail, which was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contended that the petitioner has been unnecessarily arraigned as an accused in the case on hand and the allegation against the petitioner is not so grave so as to deny the bail. 7. He would further contend that similarly placed accused Nos.9 and 10 were granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, on the ground of parity, present petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail request by contending that specific overt-act has been alleged against the petitioner, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 who has used deadly weapon and assaulted on the vital part of the body of Bheemesh resulting in head injury and therefore, grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity wound not arise and sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is a specific overt-act alleged against the petitioner, who is accused No.2. In the complaint as well as in the statements given by the injured persons, the role of the present petitioner is assaulting Bheemesh with a wooden reaper on his head. 10. In fact, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the bail request of accused Nos.9 and 10 has also observed that it is accused No.2, who has assaulted on the head of Bheemesh, resulting in grievous injury to Bhemeesh. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 11. In the case on hand, this successive bail request is on the ground that the charge sheet is filed. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that filing of the charge sheet is no doubt a changed circumstance. But in every case, it is not a positive changed circumstance in respect of an accused where specific material has been collected by the Investigation Agency to proceed with the case. 12. In the case is on hand, since the allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 got fortified by the other materials collected by the Investigation Agency, mere filing of the charge sheet would not ipso facto make out a case for present petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail. Further, ground of parity is not applicable to the case hand, inasmuch as, individual overt-acts insofar as accused Nos.9 and 10 are all together different from the role assigned to the present petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, petition cannot be entertained. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2966 CRL.P No. 200704 of 2025 13. Further, case is based on the statements of the eyewitnesses, which are yet to be examined. Further, there is a long standing previous enmity and cases and counter cases are already pending between the complaint party and accused party. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are not sufficient to entertain the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, following: ORDER Criminal petition stands rejected. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:PK