Kumara @ Ramesh Kumara vs State

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this successive bail petition, the Petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 2 in S.C. No. 138/2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, has sought for bail on the ground of parity, as two other accused persons, Arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3, who are similarly placed have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 2265/2010 and 3094/2010.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by one K.M. Ravikumar, son of Mallappa, Chairman of Grama Panchayat, Bukkambudi, Phanithaluru, Tarikere Taluk reporting that an unknown male dead body is found floating on Bukkambudhi Doddakere by the side of Chennagiri road, the case in Crime No. 76/2009 was registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation the dead body was fished out of the tank and thereafter inquest was held and the dead body was sent to autopsy. As per the medical opinion, the death of the deceased was homicide. During investigation, the accused No. 3 was arrested and on the basis of the voluntary statement said to have been made by the accused No. 3, the present Petitioner along with the accused No. 1 was arrested.

The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct evidence. The earlier bail petition filed by the Petitioner before this Court came in be rejected on the ground that the Petitioner has been involved in five other cases registered in different police stations for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C. Now this petition is filed on the ground that the other two accused involved in this case have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and therefore on the ground of parity, the present Petitioner is also entitled for bail in connection with the present case. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in other cases.

Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged in the other cases against the Petitioner, he cannot be denied bail in connection with this case. The fact that the accused Nos. 1 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail is not disputed by the Respondent. The allegations made against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the present case is one and the same. According to the prosecution, the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of the accused No. 1 and he was also a member of the gang along with the accused Nos. 1 and 3, who indulged in the act of housebreaking and committing robbery and on account of some differences in the matter of distributing the booty, the deceased was killed and the dead body was thrown into the tank.

At this stage, there is no prima facie evidence to indicate the involvement of the Petitioner in the homicidal death of the deceased. In view of the fact that the accused Nos. 1 and 3, who are similarly placed have already been enlarged on bail, in my opinion, the Petitioner is also entitled for bail on the principles of parity. The other cases said to have been registered against the Petitioner are still under investigation or trial stage. Having regard to the nature of the offences alleged in those cases, I am of the opinion that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for bail in connection with this case.

Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to bail. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with S.C. No. 137/2009 (Crime No. 76/2009), subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge;

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

iii) Petitioner shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge on all the hearing dates without fail.