STEEPAN FARNANDIS @ GUNDA v. STATE BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is accused No.1 in Special Case No.283/2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur. The petitioner and 13 others were charge-sheeted for offences alleged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The allegation is that the deceased, Manja, and the accused formed two rival groups engaged in criminal activities. It is alleged that, due to animosity between these groups, the accused conspired to murder Manja. On 15.6.2015 at about 9:00 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on motorbike No. KA-06-EN-4413 near Upparahalli Railway Gate, the accused, forming an unlawful assembly and reportedly armed with long weapons and a dagger, assaulted and murdered him. The deceased is alleged to have belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.

Procedurally, counsel for the petitioner informed the court that other accused in the case have already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The petition sought bail for the petitioner; the court considered submissions including concession(s) regarding bail being granted to certain co-accused and the absence of contestation by the deceased's wife to the notice served upon her.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who have already been granted bail.
2. Whether the absence of objection from the deceased's wife (despite service of notice) and the reasons on which co-accused were granted bail are relevant to the petitioner's entitlement to bail.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that other accused in the case have already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, implying that the petitioner should be similarly placed on the principle of parity.

Respondent / State's Submissions (Learned HCGP)

• The HCGP stated that the second accused was granted bail on medical grounds and also on the ground that the wife of the deceased had no objection to grant of bail to the second accused.
• The HCGP noted the allegation against accused Nos. 2 and 3 (that they assaulted the deceased with long weapon and dagger on his head) and acknowledged that those accused have been granted bail.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning, as stated in the opinion, proceeded on the following points drawn directly from the record and submissions:

1. The court noted that certain co-accused (specifically accused Nos. 2 and 3, and a second accused mentioned by the HCGP) had been granted bail by the Sessions Judge.
2. The HCGP informed the court that bail to the second accused had been granted on medical grounds and because the wife of the deceased had no objection to that bail.
3. The court observed that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had the same or similar allegations (assaulting the deceased with a long weapon and dagger on his head) and that they had been granted bail.
4. Notice of the petition had been served on the wife of the deceased, but she did not appear to contest the petition.
5. Given the grant of bail to co-accused on grounds that included parity and the absence of contestation by the deceased's wife, the court concluded that the petitioner was similarly entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
6. On that basis the petition was allowed and bail was ordered, subject to specified conditions imposed by the court.

Holding and Implications

PETITION ALLOWED — BAIL GRANTED

Direct effect on the parties:

• The petitioner is granted bail in Special Case No.283/2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur.
• The release is subject to the following conditions explicitly imposed by the court:
  • Execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 and furnish one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
  • Not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
  • Appear before the court as and when required for the trial.

The opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications or purport to lay down a new precedent; the decision is grounded on parity with co-accused who had been granted bail and the absence of contestation by the deceased's wife as reflected in the record.

Order signed: Sd/- JUDGE