Parashuram vs State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioner, apprehending arrest during investigation in Crime No. 172/13 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 354B read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeks a direction to the investigating officer to release him in the event of his arrest. State has opposed bail.

Prosecution case is based on the report of one Gowri-daughter of Ramachandra before the jurisdictional police station on 28.8.2013, in which she alleged that when she and her brother-Manjunath were proceeding in front of Iyengar Bakery situate in Hangal bus station after buying flowers and other items for pooja, 1st accused-Parashuram Shivarayappa Moolimani and 2nd accused-Raju Shivarayappa Moolimani who were coming from the opposite direction, picked up quarrel as the hand of 1st accused touched her. Complainant fell; when she asked the accused about such act and scolded him, her brother-Manjunath joined her. Thereupon there was a quarrel which resulted in violence. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have assaulted him and they were joined by two more persons who abused complainant''s brother and in this manner he was assaulted. The 1st accused-Parashuram Shivarayappa Moolimani is said to have used a belt to hit, while the others used club, causing injuries; the victim was shifted to hospital where he died.

During the course of investigation, the complainant is said to have given further statement indicting the petitioner herein who carries the similar name of the 1st accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, the allegations in the first complaint and in the further statement are totally at variance. While in the first report, she mentioned overt acts of accused Nos. 1 and 2 as also accused Nos. 3 and 4, no overt act was attributed to the petitioner. Later she has withdrawn the allegation against two of the accused based on which they were admitted to bail by this court. He submits, petitioner is not involved in the incident and merely because his name is also Parashuram, like that of the 1st accused, the investigating officer seeks to arrest him. He relies on the voter''s list and other documents to dispute that he is one of the persons involved in the incident.

According to the prosecutor, the petitioner is also involved in the crime with accused No. 1 who also carried the same name.

At this juncture, it is to be noticed there are two individuals by the same name, but the surname and family name differs. If that be so, the investigating officer will certainly have to take into consideration these aspects. For the present, if what the petitioner has urged is correct, then he will not be required for investigation at all, and the application u/s 438, Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to release him in the event of arrest will not arise. The incident is said to have occurred on a trivial mater and as the allegation is against Parashuram Shivarayappa Moolimani and not against Parashuram simpliciter, as mentioned in the petition, I feel there is no material at this juncture indicating that the petitioner is involved in the casein question.

In view of the circumstances brought out through the first complaint and subsequent statement and the stand taken by the petitioner that he is not the one named as 1st accused and in view of 2nd accused having been granted bail, this petition is disposed of directing the investigating officer to ascertain as to whether the petitioner who appears to be a person other than the 1st accused but carries the same name, is involved in the crime in question, and if so, to summon him for interrogation. In such an event, petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer and subject himself to interrogation and release him in case his arrest is required if the petitioner executes a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum. Within two weeks therefrom, petitioner shall apply for grant of bail before the jurisdictional court. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.