In a crucial judicial decision that underscored the severity of the alleged crime and the direct involvement of the accused, the LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-64) at Bengaluru, Sri. A.V. Patil, rejected the regular bail application filed by two key accused, Chennappa Krishnappa Pammar (A-4) and Manjunath Tukaram Pammar (A-5), in a 2022 murder case. The order, passed on September 14, 2023, dismissed the petition, Crl. Misc. No. 8496/2023, which was filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

The petitioners, both residents of Bagalkote District, were facing serious charges in the case (S.C. No. 579/2023 arising from Cr. No. 178/2022 of K.P. Agrahara Police Station) for offences under Sections 143 (Unlawful Assembly), 144 (Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 (Rioting), 148 (Rioting armed with deadly weapon), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and the principal charge of 302 (Murder), all read with Section 149 (Prosecution of common object) of the IPC.

The Prosecution’s Case: Conspiracy and Murder

The prosecution presented a grim narrative, alleging that the murder of the deceased, Manjunath, was the result of a pre-meditated criminal conspiracy involving seven accused persons. The motive was rooted in the deceased’s objection to the illicit relations between A-1 and A-2. The charge sheet alleged that on December 3, 2022, A-1, finding herself unable to live independently due to the deceased’s interference, informed A-2 to A-7, and the group formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Manjunath.

The petitioners, Chennappa (A-4) and Manjunath (A-5), were implicated in luring the victim to a meeting spot near Hemanth Medicals on Magadi Road on December 4, 2022, at around 12:30 a.m. The brutal assault occurred shortly thereafter. While A-1, A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7 allegedly restrained the deceased, A-2 and A-3 were stated to have thrown a stone and a cement brick on the victim’s head. Crucially, the charge sheet specifically alleges that Chennappa (A-4) and Manjunath (A-5) also participated directly in the deadly assault by throwing the same stone and brick onto the head of the deceased, resulting in his death.

The Ground of Parity Rejected

The defense counsel for Chennappa and Manjunath, Sri. Kiran SS, argued that the petitioners were innocent and deserved bail, highlighting that A-1, A-6, and A-7 had already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (Crl. Pet. No. 2959/2023 and Crl. Pet. No. 736/2023). They contended that the petitioners, who are young (A-4 is 19 years old and an ITI pass, and A-5 is 25 and the sole earning member of his family), were entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The counsel also cited several Supreme Court and High Court precedents where bail was granted, often based on similar facts or the principle of parity.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense, which is punishable with death or life imprisonment. He pointed out that the involvement of the petitioners was established through the seizure of the deceased’s mobile phone and subsequent call detail records (CDR), which proved contact between A-1 and the deceased prior to the murder.

The Court, in its analysis, differentiated the petitioners’ role from the co-accused who were granted bail. The Judge noted that the High Court had granted bail to A-1, A-6, and A-7 primarily because the charge sheet allegations suggested they were only holding the deceased and had no direct overt act of assault attributed to them.

However, the Court found a clear distinction in the roles of Chennappa and Manjunath. The Court explicitly stated: “The overt act of these petitioners is cause for death.” The charge sheet clearly attributes to A-4 and A-5 the specific act of throwing the stone and cement brick on the head of the deceased, making their involvement direct and severe.

The Court ruled: “The enlargement of accused No.1, 6 and 7 is not a ground to grant bail for the simple reason that due to the overt act of petitioners the death of Manujath occurred.”

Concerns Over Absconding and Tampering

Beyond the gravity of the direct overt act, the Court factored in the non-local status of the petitioners, who are residents of Bagalkote District, far from Bengaluru where the crime occurred and the trial is proceeding. The Court expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioners might abscond or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, a risk deemed too high given the severity of the charge.

The Court upheld the legal principle that at the bail stage, it cannot conduct a “mini-trial” to determine the merits of the case. However, having considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment (death or life imprisonment), and the direct causal role of the petitioners’ alleged actions in the victim’s death, the Court concluded that it was not safe to exercise discretion in favor of granting bail.

The application filed by Chennappa Krishnappa Pammar (A-4) and Manjunath Tukaram Pammar (A-5) was therefore rejected, affirming the prosecution’s contention of their direct involvement and the heinous nature of the murder. The accused will remain in judicial custody as the trial proceeds.