- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2239 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133. 2. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL S/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133. 3. HARISH, S/O ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VEMAGAL POLICE, KOLAR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. PRAVEEN R, S/O RAMAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 R/AT RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 133. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.C. VENKAT RANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2024 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.12/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (CR.NO.98/2024 OF VEMAGAL P.S.) THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. M.C.Venkat Rangaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The appeal is filed by accused Nos.11, 13 and 15 in Special SC.No.12/2024. 3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under : In column No.17 of the charge sheet filed in the case, it has been mentioned that there were quarrels between accused - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 No.1 and Sri. Ambareesh (deceased) about two years earlier to the alleged incident in the present case and in pursuance of the said previous enmity, on 02.05.2024 at about 10:15.pm., after CW-1 finished his work and was moving near Safe Express Company, driver of the tractor came on the left side suddenly and there was an attempt to take his life. Thereafterwards, all the accused persons, including the present accused persons holding the weapons, came near the house of the accused and took up the quarrel and assaulted Sri. Ambareesh and ultimately, Sri. Ambareesh lost his life. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant, Police filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and also under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 4. After the charge sheet, presence of the accused persons were secured and they were sent to judicial custody. Learned Special Judge took cognizance and the attempt made by the present appellants to get them enlarged on bail was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 rejected by the learned Special Judge by order dated 21.09.2024. Thereafter, the appellants are before this Court. 5. Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the present appellants have been falsely implicated in the incident and similarly placed accused Nos.14 and 16 were granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, the present appellants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 6. Per contra, Sri. Chennappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. M.C.Venkatrangaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the bail grounds and contends that this Court has rejected the bail for accused Nos.4 to 6 and therefore, the question of parity in granting the bail to the present appellants on the ground that accused Nos.14 and 16 have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench by this Court, cannot be countenanced in law. 7. They also contended that there are eye witnesses to the incident and their statement is to be considered for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 limited purpose of appreciating the case of the parties wherein, the eye witnesses have specifically taken the names of the present appellants and their individual overt acts in the death of Sri. Ambareesh and therefore, bail is to be rejected. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the complaint averments would reveal that the complainant was not personally aware of the incident and he has revealed the names of accused Nos.1 to 10 at the first instance. Therefore, FIR came to be lodged against accused Nos.1 to 10 at the first instance. 10. After registering the complaint, the Investigation Officer, who is of the rank of Dy.S.P., thoroughly investigated the matter inter alia recorded the statements of the eye witnesses and thereafter, apprehended accused Nos.11 to 16 on the basis of the voluntarily statements said to have been given by accused No.1. Subsequent thereto, based on the other material available on record, the Investigating Officer - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 apprehended the present appellants along with accused Nos.14 and 16 and filed the charge sheet. 11. Attempt made by the present appellants to seek the grant of bail is turned down by the learned Special Judge on the ground that there are materials on record in the form of statements of the eye witnesses whereby, prima facie materials are found in the case, including the number of injuries found on the body of Sri. Ambareesh. 12. Fact remains that similarly placed accused Nos.14 and 16 have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after notifying the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. 13. It is submitted on behalf of the de-facto complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader that they did not appeal against the order granting the bail for accused Nos.14 and 16. 14. This Court, under such circumstances, perused the material on record to find out whether the test of parity would be applicable insofar as the present appellants are concerned, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 in view of the fact that accused Nos.14 and 16 have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 15. On such exercise being carried out, there is sufficient force in the argument putforth on behalf of the appellants that the present appellants stand on the same footing as that of the accused Nos.14 and 16, who have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 16. Fact that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejecting the bail request to accused Nos.4 to 6 cannot come in the way of applying the test of parity in view of the fact that the role assigned to accused Nos.4 to 6 and the present appellants are altogether different. 17. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter as it may hamper the rights of the parties during the trial one way or the other, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appellants are also to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the following : ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1576 CRL.A No. 2239 of 2024 ii) Appellants, who are accused Nos.11, 13 and 15 are directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. iii) The appellants shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iv) The appellants shall attend the Court regularly. v) The appellants shall not leave the jurisdiction of Kolar District without prior permission. Violation of any one of the condition would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK