KABC010234382023
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 14th day of September 2023
: PRESENT :
Sri.A.V.Patil, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.8496/2023
PETITIONERS:
1.

Chennappa Krishnappa Pammar
S/o Late.Krishnappa Manappa
Pammar, Aged about 19 years,
Residing at Hanapura S.P.Thanda,
Guledagudda Taluk Ц 587 203
Bagalaote District.
(Accused No.4)
2.

Manjunath Tukaram Pammar,
S/o Tukaram Manappa Pammar,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at Hanapura S.P.Thanda,
Guledagudda Taluk Ц 587 203
Bagalaote District.
(Accused No.5)
(By Sri.Kiran SS, Advocate)
2
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
– Vs State by K.P.Agrahara Police
Station, Bengaluru.

RESPONDENT :
(By Public Prosecutor)
ORDER
The petitioners No.1 and 2/accused No.4 and 5
have filed this petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of
bail in Cr.No.178/2022 i.e., SC No.579/2023 registered
for the offences punishable u/s 143, 144, 147, 148,
323, 302 r/w Sec.149 of IPC.
2.

It is stated in the bail application that they are
innocents
of
the
alleged
offences
and
have
not
committed any offences. They are law-abiding citizens.
There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The
respondent/Police have registered false case only to
harass the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is 19 years old
and has completed ITI. Petitioner No.2 is aged about 25
years and only earning member in the family. Accused
No.6 and 7 are enlarged on bail by HonТble High Court
in Crl.Pet.No.736/2023 dated 09.03.2023 and Accused
No.1 is enlarged on bail by HonТble High Court in
Crl.Pet.No.2959/2023
dated
05.06.2023.

The
3
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
petitioners are also entitled for bail on the ground of
parity. They are residing in the address shown in the
cause title with family and are not involved in any
offences. They are ready to obey the terms and
conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed to
grant bail.
3.

The learned P.P. has opposed the bail application
by filing the objections statement. According to him, IO
after due investigation found that petitioners have
committed the offences. The offences alleged against the
accused are heinous offence and are punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. Among other grounds
prayed to dismiss the bail application filed by the
petitioner.
4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued
that the petitioners have not committed any offences as
alleged by the prosecution. They are innocent and are
looking after the family members. Petitioner No.1 is 19
years old and has completed ITI. Petitioner No.2 is aged
about 25 years and only earning member in the family.
Accused No.6 and 7 are enlarged on bail by HonТble
High Court in Crl.Pet.No.736/2023 and Accused No.1 is
are enlarged on bail in Crl.Pet.No.2959/2023. The
4
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
petitioners are also entitled for bail on the ground of
parity. Therefore, prayed to enlarge the petitioners on
bail. The Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance
on the following decisions;
1. Crl.Pet.No.2959/2023 (Smt.Saroja Vs. State
of Kar.)
2. Crl.Pet.No.736/2023
(Smt.Akkamahadevi
and another Vs. State of Kar.)
3. Crl.Petition No.3683/20216 (Roopshree and
others Vs. State of Karnataka by Women
Police)
4. (2010) 15 SCC 529 (Avtar Singh Vs. State of
Punjab)
5. (2005) 7 SCC 226 (Kamaljit Singh Vs. State
of Punjab)
6. Crl.Petition No.2306/2022 (Nethra Vs. State
of Kar.)
7. Crl.Petition No.2509/2019 (Kavitha Vs. State
of Kar)
5.

Per
contra,
the
learned
Public
Prosecutor
vehemently argued that the petitioners are not resident
of Bengaluru and on the basis of seizure of mobile
collected call details and found the involvement of
petitioners in committing the murder of deceased. After
investigation IO filed the charge sheet. The offences
alleged against the petitioners are punishable with
death or life imprisonment. According to him, they are
5
not entitled for bail.

Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
Hence, prayed to reject the bail
application.
6.

Perused the materials placed on record.

7.

The points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for bail
as prayed in the application filed under
Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?

8.

My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: in the negative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
9.

Point No.1:- As per the prosecution case, accused
No.1 and deceased were residing in Bengaluru and the
accused No.1 has illicit relation with others. The
deceased was objected for the illegal relation of accused
No.1 and 2. As the deceased was objecting, the accused
No.1 thought that the deceased will not leave her to live
independently and informed this fact to accused No.2 to
7 and in order to do something, on 03.12.2022, the
accused No.1 along with accused No.2 to 7 formed
lawful assembly and hatched criminal conspiracy to kill
Manjunath. With a common object, accused No.4 and 5
6
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
called Manjunath to Hemanth Medicals, 5th Cross,
Magadi Road, Bengaluru to talk on 04.12.2022 at about
12.30 a.m. Accused No.1 to 3, 6 and 7 made
Manjunatha to sit there and between 12.45 to 01.00
p.m., all the accused made the deceased fall down,
accused No.1, 4 to 7 caught hold the deceased and
accused No.2 and 3 thrown the stone and cement brick
on the head of the deceased and accused No.4 and 5
are also thrown same stone and brick thereby murdered
the Manjunath. Accordingly, IO filed the charge sheet
against the petitioners and other for the offence
punishable u/s 302 of IPC.
10. I have gone through the decisions relied on by the
learned Counsel for petitioners and kept in mind the
view taken in the said decisions while coming to the
final conclusion.
11. The first two decisions are in respect of accused
No.1, 6 and 7 of this case. In 1st case the HonТble High
Court of Karnataka has taken into consideration that it
is not alleged that the petitioner has assaulted the
deceased with stone and similarly placed accused No.6
and 7 who are enlarged on bail in Cri.Pet.No.736/2023.
In 2nd decision the HonТble High Court of Karnataka has
7
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
taken into consideration and has held that other
accused persons who have assaulted the deceased with
cement blocks on his head repeatedly. Further the
HonТble High Court of Karnataka by resorting to the
special powers vested with the Court u/s 439 Cr.P.C
enlarged accused No.6 and 7 on bail. The 3rd decision is
in respect of the anticipatory bail granted in an offence
alleged to have been committed u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
The said offence is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. In that case, HonТble High Court
of
Karnataka
taking
into
consideration
all
the
surrounding circumstances granted anticipatory bail.
In the 4th decision, the HonТble Apex Court of India has
granted the bail on the ground that some of the coaccused have already enlarged on bail i.e., on the
ground of parity. In the 5th decision, the HonТble Apex
Court of India has granted anticipatory bail taking in to
consideration that when on the similar allegations the
remaining
two
accused
have
been
granted
the
anticipatory bail i.e., on the ground of parity. In the 6th
decision, the HonТble High Court of Karnataka, in an
offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, has held that in
exceptional case, if the statute permits and the facts not
8
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
been so gory and grave criminal antecedents shrouding
the culprit, the consideration in such cases would be
different and taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances granted the bail. In the 7th and 8th
decisions, the HonТble High Court of Karnataka, taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, granted bail.
12. Earlier the petitioners had filed the bail petition.
After hearing on merits the said bail application was
rejected relying on the sell settled principles say down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Cri. Appeal
No.1279/2021 (Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Another) and Cri. Appeal No.1202/2021 (Prashant
Singh Rajput Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another).
13. Keeping in mind the settled principles to be
considered while deciding the bail application in the
above judgments and views taken in the decisions relied
on by the learned Counsel for petitioners let me
consider the present facts of the case.
14. In
the
present
case
during
the
course
of
investigation, the mobile phone of the deceased was
9
found.

Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
On the basis of the CDR, SDR and MCCTNS
ascertained that the accused No.1 talked to the
deceased prior to his death. On the basis of the same,
the
investigation
is
conducted
and
found
the
involvement of accused No.1 to 7 in committing the
crime. As per the charge sheet allegations the present
petitioners i.e., accused No.2 and 3 have put the stone
and cement brick on the head of the deceased. Later
accused No.4 and 5/petitioners have put the stone and
cement brick on the head of the deceased, as a result of
which deceased Manjunath died. The overt act of these
petitioners is cause for death. The HonТble High Court
of Karnataka has held that as per the charge sheet
allegations accused No.1, 6 and 7 were only holding the
deceased and no allegations of assault and taking into
consideration about no overt-act of assault by accused
No.1, 6 and 7, they were enlarged on bail. From the
materials collected by the I.O. prima facie discloses the
involvement of the petitioners to commit the offence u/s
302 of IPC which is heinous in nature and if it is proved
the punishment would be death or imprisonment for
life.
15. It is settled principles of law that at the stage of
10
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
deciding a bail petition, this Court cannot hold a mini
trial to find out merits or demerits of the case. If any
such mini trial is held, it would prejudice the rights of
the parties one way or other. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of
the accusation, severity of punishment, the overt act to
commit offence, the petitioners are not local residents of
Bengalutu and resident of Bagalkote District, in the
event of conviction, it is not safe to grant bail to the
petitioners. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they
may
abscond
witnesses.

and
may
tamper
the
prosecution
On facts the views taken in the decisions
are standing on different footing and cannot be made
applicable to the present facts of the case.

In the
opinion of this Court the enlargement of accused No.1,
6 and 7 is not ground to grant bail for the simple
reason that due to the overt act of petitioners the death
of Manujath occurred. Hence, it is not fit case to
exercise the discretion in favor of petitioners. For the
fore going reasons, I answer this point in the negative.
16. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1,
I proceed to pass the following;
11
Crl.Misc.No.8496/2023
ORDER
The regular bail petition filed by
petitioners u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby
rejected.
(Typed by the Judgment Writer on my dictation, the
transcript revised and then pronounced by me in open Court on
this the 14th day of September 2023)
(A.V.PATIL)
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.